Datasets:

izardy

/

malaysia-kehakiman-ejudgement

like 1

DA-25-2-02/2023

PEMOHON BAJING ANAK LAYONG RESPONDEN 1. ) DATO SRI HJ MUSTAFAR BIN HJ ALI Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan No 1 Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN NO 1 JABATAN IMIGRESEN MALAYSIA 3. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 4. ) SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA 5. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

"A 53 KKM 2012 - Semakan Kehakiman - relif untuk membatalkan hukuman buang kerja - sama ada Responden telah mematuhi PPLTPA - sama ada Responden telah mematuhi PPA (K&T) - sama ada Ketua Jabatan seharusnya memfailkan Afidavit Jawapan."

18/01/2024

YA Datuk Mohamad Abazafree bin Mohd Abbas

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=79793036-d0a9-411e-8acb-ac2657b81745&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO : DA-25-2-02/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Permohonan untuk suatu Perintah Certiorari untuk Membatalkan Hukuman Buang Kerja berkuatkuasa pada 24 Januari 2017; Dan Dalam Perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA BAJING ANAK LAYONG (NO K/P: 931125-13-6629) … PEMOHON DAN 1. DATO’ SRI HJ MUSTAFAR BIN HJ ALI (Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan No. 1, Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia) 2. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN NO. 1 JABATAN IMIGRESEN MALAYSIA 3. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 4. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … RESPONDEN- RESPONDEN 18/01/2024 11:15:16 DA-25-2-02/2023 Kand. 21 S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Ini adalah merupakan satu Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman yang difailkan oleh Pemohon di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012) bagi memohon satu relif untuk membatalkan hukuman buang kerja yang dibuat oleh Responden serta satu Perintah Mandamus untuk Pemohon dikembalikan semula kepada pekerjaannya serta relif-relif lain yang berkait. Fakta kes [2] Pemohon adalah merupakan bekas Pegawai Imigresen berjawatan Pegawai Imigresen Gred KP19 yang telah berkhidmat selama 3 tahun. Pada masa yang material, Pemohon berkhidmat di Pejabat Imigresen Lapangan Terbang KLIA. [3] Pada pertengahan tahun 2016, satu operasi besar-besaran dibawah Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA) dan Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 (APJ) oleh Polis DiRaja Malaysia telah dilakukan ke atas pegawai-pegawai Jabatan Imigresen kerana disyaki terlibat di dalam sindiket penyeludupan warga asing di KLIA di mana Pemohon adalah salah seorang yang ditahan didalam operasi tersebut. Di dalam operasi tersebut, Pemohon telah ditangkap serta ditahan, namun tiada sebarang pertuduhan dikenakan ke atas Pemohon. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] Sebaliknya, pada 21/6/2016, Pemohon telah diperintahkan menjalani Perintah Pengawasan Polis di Bawah Seksyen 15 Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 (Akta 297) ("Perintah Pengawasan tersebut") selama 2 tahun bermula 21/12/2016 hingga 20/12/2018 di dalam daerah Bintulu, Bahagian Bintulu, negeri Sarawak tertakluk kepada syarat-syarat yang dikenakan. [5] Berikutan itu, Responden Pertama selaku Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib, telah membuat pengaduan kepada Responden Kedua. [6] Pada 23/2/2018, Pemohon telah menerima surat daripada Responden Pertama melalui Ketua Jabatannya iaitu Pengarah Imigresen KLIA yang memaklumkan bahawa Responden Kedua dalam Mesyuarat Bil 01/2017 pada 24/1/2017 setelah mempertimbangkan dengan teliti, memutuskan Pemohon bersalah setelah Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah membuat keputusan untuk meletakkan Pemohon di bawah Perintah Pengawasan tersebut. Responden Kedua turut mengenakan hukuman Buang Kerja mengikut Peraturan 38(g) Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan & Tatatertib) 1993 (PPA (K&T)) berkuatkuasa pada 24/11/2017. [7] Responden Pertama selaku Pengerusi Responden Kedua kemudiannya telah memberikan peluang kepada Pemohon di bawah Peraturan 14 & 15(1) Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam 1993 (PPLTPA) untuk membuat rayuan kepada Responden Ketiga melalui Ketua Jabatan Pemohon dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh terima surat keputusan Responden Kedua. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] Pada 27/2/2018 Pemohon telah mengemukakan rayuan kepada Responden Ketiga memohon agar tidak dikenakan hukuman buang kerja. [9] Berikutan itu, Responden Ketiga pada 4/3/2019 telah bersidang untuk mendengar rayuan Pemohon dan mendapati bahawa rayuan Pemohon tidak mempunyai asas yang kukuh. Oleh yang demikian, keputusan Responden Kedua adalah dikekalkan. Menurut Responden Ketiga, keputusan tersebut telah cuba diserahkan kepada Pemohon di alamat terakhir Pemohon, namun pada 6/9/2019, surat pemakluman tersebut dikembalikan sebagai tidak dituntut. [10] Namun menurut Pemohon, memandangkan tiada sebarang pemakluman diterima berkaitan rayuannya, maka pada 5/12/2022, Pemohon telah melantik peguamcara iaitu Tetuan Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz dan mengarahkan peguamcara tersebut menulis surat kepada Responden Ketiga melalui Ketua Jabatan Pemohon untuk memohon diberikan jawapan atau maklumbalas berkaitan status rayuan Pemohon. [11] Menerusi surat bertarikh 11/1/2023, Ketua Jabatan Pemohon telah memberikan maklumbalas dan telah melampir dan menyerahkan sesalinan surat keputusan Lembaga Rayuan kepada peguam Pemohon. [12] Berikutan itu, Pemohon telah menfailkan permohonan meminta kebenaran di bawah Aturan 53 kaedah 3 KKM 2012 pada 6/2/2023 S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 dan Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu telah pada 19/3/2023 memberikan kebenaran untuk menfailkan Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman untuk satu certiorari bagi membatalkan keputusan Responden-responden. [13] Pemohon di dalam permohonannya memohon relif sebagaimana berikut; (a) suatu Perintah Certiorari bagi membatalkan hukuman buang kerja yang dibuat oleh Responden berkuatkuasa pada 24/1/2017; (b) suatu Perintah bahawa hukuman buang kerja ke atas Pemohon pada 24/1/2017 adalah batal, tidak sah dan tiada efek; (c) suatu Perintah Mandamus bahawa Pemohon, dengan kadar segera, dikembalikan ke pekerjaannya dengan pangkat asalnya sebelum pada hukuman buang kerja dikenakan oleh Responden; (d) suatu perintah bahawa pemohon layak menerima semula semua pembayaran gaji, elaun, emolumen, pampasan pencen, pencen bulanan dan segala bayaran yang beliau layak terima mengikut skim perkhidmatannya serta peluang kenaikan pangkat dan kekananan; dan S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (e) suatu siasatan/inkuiri/prosiding pentaksiran oleh Penolong Kanan Pendaftar/Timbalan Pendaftar, Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kota Bharu, Kelantan untuk menentukan semua tunggakan gaji, emolumen, elaun-elaun dan faedah-faedah lain yang Pemohon sepatutnya menerima dari tarikh Pemohon dibuang kerja daripada perkhidmatan (24/1/2017) sehingga penyelesaian penuh. Prinsip Undang-undang Berkaitan Semakan Kehakiman [14] Prinsip undang-undang di bawah Aturan 53 KKM 2012 adalah jelas dan mantap berkaitan kuasa Mahkamah ini di mana Mahkamah boleh menyemak keputusan Pihak Berkuasa Awam yang menjalankan tugas atau fungsi awam atas alasan sama ada sesuatu keputusan tersebut adalah “illegal, irrational or procedure impropriety”. [15] Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa permohonan Semakan Kehakiman bukan bertujuan untuk menyemak keputusan tetapi untuk menyemak proses keputusan itu dibuat, dan bahawa di dalam permohonan Semakan Kehakiman, Mahkamah tidak menjalankan bidang kuasa rayuan tetapi bidang kuasa penyeliaan. Adalah menjadi kewajipan Mahkamah untuk melihat sama ada keputusan yang dibuat oleh Lembaga Tatatertib itu telah mengikut prosedur yang ditetapkan di bawah PPA (U&T) dan PPPA. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (rujuk; Wira Swire Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2019] 1 LNS 1026; Peguam Negara Malaysia v. Chin Chee Kow & Another Appeal [2019] 4 CLJ 561; [2019] MLJU 202; T Ganeswaran lwn. Suruhanjaya Polis Diraja Malaysia & Satu Lagi [2005] 3 CLJ 302 dan Rohana bte Ariffin & Anor v. Universiti Sains Malaysia [1988] 2 CLJ (Rep) 390; [1988] 1 CLJ 559). Isu-isu yang berbangkit [16] Di dalam hujahannya, peguam Pemohon telah membangkitkan 5 isu utama iaitu: (a) kegagalan Responden-responden mematuhi Peraturan 15 dan 16 PPLTPA; (b) kelewatan di dalam pemberitahuan keputusan rayuan tatatertib ke atas Pemohon; (c) kegagalan Responden-responden mematuhi Peraturan 20 PPLTPA dan Peraturan 53 PPA (K&T); (d) kegagalan Responden-responden mematuhi prosedur tindakan tatatertib di bawah Peraturan 32 dan 33(2) PPA(K&T); dan S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (e) kegagalan Ketua Jabatan untuk mendeposkan affidavit Analisis dan dapatan Mahkamah Isu (a); kegagalan Responden-responden mematuhi Peraturan 15 dan 16 PPLTPA [17] Keterangan di dalam kes ini menunjukkan Pemohon telah mengemukakan rayuan melalui surat rayuan Pemohon bertarikh 27/2/2018 kepada Responden Ketiga melalui Ketua Jabatan Pemohon, selepas menerima surat daripada Responden Pertama pada 23/2/2018 di mana Pemohon dibuang kerja. Surat rayuan yang dikemukakan oleh Pemohon kepada Responden Ketiga adalah dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh terima surat keputusan daripada Responden Pertama. [18] Perkara ini telah diakui sendiri oleh pihak Responden Ketiga melalui ekshibit HM-4 yang dilampirkan di dalam Afidavit Jawapan Responden-responden (1) di Kandungan 9 yang dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa rayuan Pemohon telah diterima pada 27/2/2018. [19] Peraturan 15 dan 16 PPLTPA adalah jelas menyatakan bahawa kesemua pihak berkaitan tatatertib sama ada Ketua Jabatan, Lembaga Tatatertib maupun Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib adalah secara mandatori perlu mematuhi tempoh masa yang ditetapkan. Perkara ini pernah dibincangkan oleh Mahkamah ini di dalam kes S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Mohd Shukri Roslan Iwn. Dato' Sri Hj Mustafar Hj Ali & Yang Lain [2022] 6 CLJ 253; [2022] MLRHU 561 di mana Mahkamah ini menyatakan bahawa Peraturan 15(2) PPLTPA adalah jelas menyatakan Ketua Jabatan "hendaklah" tidak lewat dari 30 hari dari tarikh penerimaan rayuan mengemukakannya kepada Lembaga Tatatertib. Perkataan hendaklah ataupun di dalam Bahasa Inggerisnya adalah "shall" membawa konotasi keperluan mandatori. [20] Berkaitan perkataan “shall” ini, Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Benjamin William Hawkes v. PP [2020] 8 CLJ 267; [2020] 5 MLJ 417 telah menjelaskan berkenaan tafsiran perkataan "shall" seperti berikut; "... Applying the principles as enunciated in the aforesaid cases, whether the word "shall" in a particular legislation is mandatory or directory depends upon the intention of the Legislature in question which is ascertained by looking at the whole scope of the statute to be construed. The use of the word "shall" would not by itself make a provision of the Act mandatory. It is to be construed with reference to the scheme of the statute and the context in which it is used. In Cheong Seok Leng v. PP [1988] 1 LNS 39; [1988] 2 MLJ 481 at 489 Chan Sek Keong JC (as he then was) explained the relevant rules of interpretation to be given to the word "shall" which appears in legislation as follows: ... S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [48] The purposive rule of interpretation must be adopted in interpreting s. 51A of the CPC, pursuant to s. 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 which read as follows: 17A Regard to be had to the purpose of the Act 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. [49] It is clearly untenable in this case to allude to the word 'shall' as mandatory, thus stultifying the justice of the case, when a document was not delivered to the accused persons before the commencement of the trial." [21] Terbaru, Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd v. Mohd Afrizan Husain [2022] 4 CLJ 657 melalui penghakiman Hakim Nallini Pathmanathan HMP telah menjelaskan tafsiran perkataan "shall" seperti berikut; "[76] Rule 2.06 which is of central importance, prescribes how the AMLR is to be interpreted namely "in accordance with their S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 spirit, intention and purpose". As well as in a way that "best promotes the principles on which they are based". [77] Regrettably, neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal undertook any sort of consideration of the purpose nor principles set out in the rules in order to ascertain the meaning to be accorded to the word "shall" in r. 16.11(2). This was explained on the basis that as there was no ambiguity and there was no necessity to consider anything other than the express words used. This was understood to amount to a literal reading of the relevant rule falling for consideration. In so doing, the Court of Appeal misunderstood the function and purpose of the literal rule of statutory construction. Reading the express words set out in a statute in vacuo and without taking into consideration the context in which those words are utilised, does not amount to a literal approach to statutory interpretation. That is a grammatical application of the meaning of words. Section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 requires that the purpose and object of an Act and other instruments made under an Act must be undertaken when construing a statute. As s. 17A is a statutory provision, it must be complied with. Therefore, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, in failing to undertake this task as provided for in s. 17A, committed an error of law." S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [22] Kedua-dua keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan ini menekankan kepentingan untuk Mahkamah di dalam menafsirkan perkataan "shall" untuk menimbangkan peruntukan tersebut secara keseluruhan dengan mengambilkira seksyen 17A Akta Tafsiran 1948/1967. [23] Mahkamah ini ingin mengulangi apa yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah ini di dalam kes Mohd Shukri Roslan (supra) seperti berikut; "[24] Peraturan-peraturan tersebut meletakkan tanggungjawab kepada Lembaga Tatatertib bukan sekadar menyampaikan rayuan yang dikemukakan malahan ia menetapkan tanggungjawab untuk mengemukakan salinan rekod prosiding tatatertib serta alasan yang dipertimbang oleh Lembaga Tatatertib semasa membuat keputusan mereka. [25] Keperluan untuk mengemukakan rayuan pemohon dalam tempoh 30 hari, tidak hanya dinyatakan di dalam peraturan 15(2) namun diulang semula di dalam peraturan 15(3) dan hanya apabila ianya diterima, barulah Lembaga Rayuan mempunyai budi bicara untuk mengadakan suatu mesyuarat Lembaga Rayuan. [26] Lembaga Rayuan sepertimana di bawah peraturan 16(2) PPLTPA hanya boleh memutuskan sesuatu rayuan semata-mata atas merit rayuan tanpa menerima apa-apa S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 pernyataan atau keterangan lanjut kecuali jika pada pendapatnya adalah patut untuk berbuat demikian. Oleh itu rayuan serta rekod prosiding dan alasan Lembaga Tatatertib adalah dokumen-dokumen asas yang penting bagi Lembaga Rayuan. [27] Apabila masa telah dinyatakan sebagai keperluan yang perlu dipatuhi bagi ianya dikemukakan, maka ianya perlu dipatuhi. Ia berkaitan dengan hak Pemohon untuk rayuannya didengari, bukan sahaja berdasarkan kepada rekod-rekod yang dikemukakan, malahan di dalam tempoh waktu yang telah dijamin oleh peraturan. Oleh itu, keperluan mematuhi tempoh masa ini adalah suatu yang mandatori dan kegagalan mematuhinya adalah bagi mahkamah satu ketidakaturan prosedur yang serius." [24] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa keperluan di bawah Peraturan 15 dan 16 PPLTPA tersebut adalah satu peraturan yang mandatori dan Mahkamah tidak nampak sebarang alasan bagi Mahkamah ini untuk mengubah pandangan Mahkamah ini yang telah diberikan di dalam kes Mohd Shukri Roslan (supra). [25] Jika diteliti kepada kedua-dua Afidavit Jawapan Responden I dan II tersebut, tiada sebarang keterangan atau penjelasan yang dibuat oleh Responden-responden berkaitan bilakah Ketua Jabatan atau Lembaga Tatatertib mengemukakan rayuan Pemohon tersebut. Mahkamah tidak dikemukakan sebarang keterangan berkaitan S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 berkaitan tarikh pengemukaan maupun penerimaan rayuan tersebut. [26] Peguam Persekutuan di dalam hujahannya berpendirian bahawa pendengaran rayuan Pemohon telah didengar sebaik kesemua dokumen yang diperlukan di bawah PPLTPA telah diterima. Bagi Peguam Persekutuan, keperluan memenuhi had masa tersebut bukanlah satu yang mandatori dan ianya tidak memprejudiskan Pemohon. Malahan ditekankan bahawa adalah tidak munasabah hanya kerana ketakpatuhan had masa boleh menjejaskan keputusan Responden 2 dan Responden 3. [27] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hujahan Peguam Persekutuan adalah sukar untuk diterima. Ini kerana apabila masa telah dinyatakan sebagai keperluan yang perlu dipatuhi, maka ianya perlu dipatuhi. Ini kerana ia berkaitan dengan hak pemohon untuk rayuannya didengari, bukan sahaja berdasarkan kepada rekod- rekod yang dikemukakan, malahan di dalam tempoh waktu yang telah dijamin oleh peraturan. Oleh itu, keperluan mematuhi tempoh masa ini adalah suatu yang mandatori dan kegagalan mematuhinya adalah bagi mahkamah satu ketidakaturan prosedur yang serius. [28] Di dalam masa yang sama, Responden bukan sahaja gagal untuk memenuhi keperluan tersebut, malahan gagal untuk menyediakan alasan bagi Mahkamah ini mempertimbangkan sama ada kelewatan yang berlaku adalah wajar. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [29] Sehubungan dengan itu, bagi isu ini, Mahkamah merumuskan bahawa telah wujud ketidakpatuhan keperluan prosedur yang mandatori apabila Responden gagal mematuhi Peraturan 15 dan 16 PPLTPA dan ia menjejaskan dengan secara langsungnya keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh Responden. Isu (b); kelewatan di dalam pemberitahuan keputusan rayuan tatatertib ke atas Pemohon [30] Isu ini berbangkit berikutan dakwaan Pemohon bahawa telah wujud kelewatan selama 4 tahun 10 bulan dan 29 hari oleh Responden Ketiga untuk memaklumkan keputusan rayuannya. Peguam Pemohon menghujahkan bahawa apabila wujud kelewatan dan ianya tidak diberi penjelasan, maka semakin lama penangguhan, semakin sukar bagi badan disiplin untuk mewajarkan prosiding terhadap Pemohon. Selanjutnya, kelewatan yang lama mungkin, apabila ditambah dengan beberapa keadaan lain, menjadi bukti kukuh pengampunan ("condonation") di pihak majikan atas salah laku pekerja. (rujuk; Public Services Commision Malaysia & anor v. Vickneswary RM Santhivelu [2008] 6 CLJ 573; [2008] 2 MLRA 273). S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [31] Peguam Pemohon sekali lagi membawa perhatian Mahkamah ke atas keputusan Mahkamah ini di dalam isu yang sama di dalam kes Mohd Shukri Roslan (supra) apabila Mahkamah ini menyatakan; "[29] Selanjutnya Peguamcara Pemohon menghujahkan bahawa keputusan Lembaga Rayuan hanya dimaklumkan kepada Pemohon selepas 3 tahun dan 8 bulan melalui surat bertarikh 2 Februari 2021. Malahan pemakluman ini hanya dimaklumkan kepada Pemohon susulan daripada surat-surat yang telah dikemukakan oleh Peguamcara Pemohon kepada pihak Responden. [30] Mahkamah turut mendapati bahawa tiada penjelasan yang diberikan oleh Responden di atas kelewatan ini selain dari menyatakan bahawa surat telah dikemukakan kepada alamat terakhir Pemohon yang merupakan alamat semasa tindakan tatatertib dijalankan ke atas Pemohon. [31] Keperluan untuk memaklumkan Pemohon adalah jelas dinyatakan didalam Peraturan 20 PPLTPA yang mengkehendaki sesuatu keputusan Lembaga Rayuan diberitahu kepada Pemohon secara bertulis. Namun ia tidak pula menyatakan tempoh waktu yang perlu diambil bagi memaklumkannya." S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [32] Peguam Persekutuan sebaliknya menghujahkan bahawa kelewatan tersebut adalah disebabkan oleh kegagalan Pemohon untuk memaklumkan Ketua Jabatannya alamat tempat tinggalnya sepertimana yang diperuntukkan di bawah Peraturan 52 PPPA (K&T). Oleh itu, apabila surat keputusan rayuannya telah diserahkan ke alamat terakhir yang diketahui oleh Responden 1, maka ianya telah dianggap sebagai telah diserahkan kepada Pemohon sepertimana yang diperuntukkan di bawah Peraturan 52(2) PPPA (K&T) seperti berikut; “(2) Any notice, document or communication left at or posted to or sent by any other reasonable means to the address for service furnished under subregulation (1) shall be deemed to have been duly served on or communicated to the officer.” [33] Peguam Persekutuan telah menghujahkan bahawa Responden telah mematuhi keperluan penyerahan keputusan tersebut dan telah mengekshibitkan kad AR sepertimana di ekshibit "HM-7" dan menghujahkan bahawa beban kini berbalik kepada Pemohon untuk membuktikan sebaliknya. [34] Peguam Pemohon sebaliknya mempertikaikan ekshibit “HM-7” ini berdasarkan semakan ke atas nombor pengesanan EN330436870MY yang dibuat oleh Pemohon. Berdasarkan ekshibit “E” di Kandungan 11, Peguam Pemohon menghujahkan bahawa surat tersebut telah dialamatkan ke Nilai, Negeri Sembilan. Ini menimbulkan keraguan berkaitan siapakah dan kenapakah ianya di Nilai, Negeri Sembilan. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [35] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hujahan peguam adalah agak janggal apabila hanya merujuk kepada semakan ke atas nombor pengesanan sahaja tanpa penjelasan oleh pihak Pos Malaysia. Ia tidak lain hanyalah merupakan andaian peguam Pemohon sahaja. Sedangkan ekshibit “HM-7” dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa ia ditujukan kepada Pemohon dengan alamat di Rumah Sureng, Sungai Seremban, 97000 Bintulu, Sarawak. Ianya juga telah ditandakan sebagai “Tidak dituntut/unclaimed”. Alamat ini adalah disahkan sebagai alamat Pemohon. Oleh itu, bantahan peguam ini pada pandangan Mahkamah adalah tidak berasas. [36] Persoalan kedua yang berbangkit adalah dokumen apakah yang dikatakan dipos oleh Responden 3 kepada pemohon. Ini kerana di dalam Afidavit Jawapan Responden-responden (1), hanya dinyatakan; “pada 6/9/2019, Ketua Jabatan Pemohon telah menyerahkan sesalinan Surat Keputusan Responden Ketiga melalui serahan secara pos laju ke alamat kediaman terakhir Pemohon. Namun yang demikian, surat tersebut dikembalikan”. [37] Surat tersebut tidak diekshibitkan oleh pihak Responden namun ianya telah diekshibitkan oleh Pemohon sebagai sebahagian dari ekshibit “C” di dalam Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon di Kandungan 3. Oleh itu, tidak timbul apakah surat yang telah dipos kepada Pemohon. [38] Di atas pertimbangan ini, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Responden-responden telah menjalankan tanggungjawab statutorinya secara munasabah untuk memaklumkan Pemohon. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa isu ini tidak memberi kesan ke atas keputusan Responden-responden ke atas Pemohon. Isu (c); kegagalan Responden-responden mematuhi Peraturan 20 PPLTPA dan Peraturan 53 PPA (K&T) [39] Bagi isu ini, asas hujahan peguam Pemohon adalah pemberitahuan keputusan Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib kepada Pemohon adalah cacat dan tidak sah kerana keputusan Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib sepatutnya dimaklumkan atau diberitahu oleh Pengerusi Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib kepada Pemohon dan bukannya diberitahu oleh Encik Ikhbal Hanam Bin Mukras bagi pihak Setiausaha. Bahkan keputusan Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib ini juga tidak diberitahu kepada Pemohon sendiri dan hanya diberitahu kepada majikan Pemohon. Pemohon hanya mengetahui berkenaan status keputusan rayuan Pemohon apabila Pemohon hadir ke pejabat majikan pada 18/03/2022. [40] Asas hujahan peguam Pemohon adalah berdasarkan kepada Peraturan 20 PPLTPA dan Peraturan 53(1) PPA (K&T). [41] Isu ini telah turut menjadi sebahagian dari isu yang telah Mahkamah ini ulas di dalam kes Mohd Shukri Roslan (supra) di mana Mahkamah menyatakan bahawa Mahkamah ini terikat dengan 2 keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Marzuki Abdul Aziz v. Ketua Polis Negara & Anor [2003] 3 CLJ 315 dan S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Dato' Saadon Othman v. Lembaga Tatatertib Awam Kumpulan Pengurusan (No 1) & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 980. Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan; "Di atas pertimbangan ini serta keterikatan Mahkamah ini ke atas keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut, Mahkamah merumuskan bahawa bagi isu ini ia tidak bermerit dan sekaligus tidak menjejaskan keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh responden ke atas Pemohon." [42] Sehubungan dengan itu, Mahkamah ini menegaskan bahawa Mahkamah ini masih terikat dengan keputusan-keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut. Sehubungan dengan itu, Mahkamah dengan ini memutuskan bahawa isu ini tidak bermerit. Isu (d); kegagalan Responden-responden mematuhi prosedur tindakan tatatertib di bawah Peraturan 32 dan 33(2) PPA(K&T) [43] Di dalam hujahannya, peguam Pemohon membawa perhatian Mahkamah ini ke atas Peraturan 32(1)(b) PPA (K&T) yang menyatakan apabila suatu Perintah Pengawasan telah dibuat terhadap seseorang pegawai di bawah mana-mana undang- undang berhubungan pencegahan jenayah, maka suatu kewajipan mandatori bagi Ketua Jabatannya hendaklah memohon bagi mendapatkan suatu salinan perintah terbabit. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [44] Seterusnya Peraturan 32(2) (PPA (K&T) 1993) menyatakan apabila Perintah terbabit sudah diterima, Ketua Jabatan hendaklah mengemukakannya kepada Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib yang berkenaan berserta dengan rekod perkhidmatan pegawai itu dan perakuan Ketua Jabatan. [45] Kedua-dua Peraturan ini dihujahkan menjadi satu keperluan mandatori agar Ketua Jabatan membuat pengesyoran dan perakuan sama ada seseorang pegawai itu patut dibuang kerja ataupun alternatif yang lebih ringan iaitu diturunkan pangkat. Pertimbangan pihak Lembaga Tatatertib hanyalah untuk menimbang laporan, rekod perkhidmatan dan Perakuan Ketua Jabatan yang dikemukakan kepadanya seperti dinyatakan dalam Peraturan 33 (2) PPA (K&T), dan membuat dapatan bahawa pegawai itu patut dibuang kerja atau mengenakan suatu hukuman yang lebih ringan. Namun keputusan ini hanya boleh dibuat sekiranya kesemua dokumen sudah ada. [46] Isu yang sama turut berbangkit di dalam kes Mohd Shukri Roslan (supra) dan Mahkamah ini ingin mengulangi pendirian Mahkamah bahawa surat sepertimana di Ekshibit HM-4 tidak menyatakan apakah pertimbangan-pertimbangan Lembaga Tatatertib sebelum membuat keputusan ke atas kes Pemohon. Surat tersebut hanya menyatakan: "setelah menimbangkan dengan teliti memutuskan tuan bersalah". Tiada sebarang rujukan dibuat sama ada ke atas rekod perkhidmatan Pemohon mahupun perakuan Ketua Jabatan. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [47] Persoalan yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah adalah sama ada Peraturan 32 tersebut secara khususnya perakuan Ketua Jabatan adalah satu yang mandatori. Di dalam kes Subramanyam Sannasy v. SAC II Syed Alwi Syed Hamid & Anor [2010] 2 CLJ 677, Mahkamah Persekutuan berhadapan dengan isu sama ada surat pembuangan kerja di bawah prosiding disiplin yang dimulakan di bawah Peraturan 33 tanpa menyatakan yang sama di dalam surat pembuangan kerja, menyebabkan surat pembuangan kerja salah dan terbatal dan tidak mempunyai efek. Surat Lembaga Tatatertib tersebut menyatakan: "Pada menjalankan kuasa-kuasa tatatertib yang telah diwakilkan kepada Lembaga Tatatertib oleh Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis mengikut PU(B) 441 bertarikh 14 Disember 2000, saya SAC II Syed Alwi bin Syed Hamid, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib setelah meneliti fakta sabitan bersama-sama Ahli Lembaga Tatatertib serta syor Ketua Polis Daerah Batu Pahat selaras dengan kehendak Peraturan 37, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 dengan ini memutuskan kamu dikenakan hukuman 'buang kerja' di atas sabitan Mahkamah tersebut selaras di bawah Peraturan 38 (g), Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 ". [48] Di dalam keputusannya Mahkamah Persekutuan telah mengambil kira keseluruhan konteks surat dan menyatakan bahawa ianya telah dipatuhi dengan ketat kerana perakuan Ketua Jabatan telah menyatakan berkenaan syor sejajar dengan Peraturan 37. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [49] Di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah kini, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib telah mendeposkan afidavit seperti berikut: "8.2. Pada 24.1.2017, setelah menerima sesalinan Perintah Tahanan Tersebut beserta rekod perkhidmatan Pemohon dan Perakuan Ketua Jabatan, Lembaga Tatatertib telah bersidang dan setelah mempertimbangkan dengan teliti, memutuskan bahawa Pemohon dikenakan hukuman buang kerja mengikut peraturan 38(g) PPPA (K&T) 1993 berkuatkuasa pada 24.1.2017” 8.3. Surat Keputusan bertarikh 7.3.2017 telah cuba diserahkan kepada pemohon secara pos berdaftar pada 17.4.2017 dan 12.1.2018 ke alamat kediaman terakhir Pemohon iaitu di alamat Rumah Sureng, Sungai Seremban, 97000 NBintulu, Sarawak, namun ianya dikembalikan kerana tidak dituntut. Sesalinan surat-surat yang dihantar pada 17.4.2017 dan 12.1.2018 yang dikembalikan tidak dituntut dilampirkan bersama-sama di sini dan ditanda sebagai ekshibit “HM-2”. 8.4 Keputusan tersebut akhirnya telah dimaklumkan kepada Pemohon pada 23.2.2018 dan telah diakui oleh Pemohon S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Sesalinan surat bertarikh 7.3.2017 tersebut beserta akuan penerimaan dilampirkan di sini dan ditanda sebagai ekshibit "HM-3" [50] Sehubungan dengan itu, bagi kes ini, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa Responden-responden telah mematuhi Peraturan 32 dan 33(2) PPA (K&T) kerana Ketua Jabatan telahpun mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen yang perlu serta dipertimbangkan oleh Lembaga Tatatertib. [51] Peguam Pemohon selanjutnya menghujahkan bahawa keterangan afidavit Responden-responden sekadar menyatakan bahawa Lembaga Tatatertib telah menerima perakuan Ketua Jabatan tanpa menyatakan apakah perakuan tersebut serta tanpa merujuk kepada peraturan yang khusus. Ini dihujahkan sebagai tidak memadai. [52] Mahkamah ini telah dirujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Subramanyam Sannasy v. SAC II Syed Alwi Syed Hamid & Anor [2009] 3 MLRA 449 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan; "[3] Consequently, the appellant's head of department, pursuant to reg 33 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ("the said Regulations"), submitted a report to the disciplinary authority and recommended that the appellant be dismissed. Regulation 33 of the said Regulations provides that where criminal S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 proceedings against an officer result in his conviction, his head of department shall send a copy of the court's decision and his record of service to the appropriate disciplinary authority that has the power to impose punishment of dismissal or reduction in rank and shall recommend whether the officer should, inter alia, be dismissed or reduced in rank "depending on the nature and seriousness of the offence committed in relation to the extent the officer has brought disrepute to the public service". [4] On 20 August 2002, after considering the recommendation of the appellant's head of department and owing to the seriousness of the offence, the disciplinary authority decided to dismiss the appellant. [5] By letter dated 26 August 2002, the disciplinary authority informed the appellant of its decision; that letter ("the said letter"), inter alia, reads: 2. Pada menjalankan kuasa-kuasa tatatertib yang telah diwakilkan kepada Lembaga Tatatertib oleh Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis mengikut PU(B) 441 bertarikh 14 December 2000, saya SAC II Syed Alwi bin Syed Hamid, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib setelah meneliti fakta sabitan bersamasama Ahli Lembaga Tatatertib serta syor Ketua Polis Daerah Batu Pahat selaras dengan kehendak Peraturan 37, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 dengan ini memutuskan kamu dikenakan hukuman 'Buang Kerja' di atas sabitan Mahkamah tersebut selaras di bawah Peraturan 38 (g), Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 3. Hukuman buang kerja terhadap kamu berkuatkuasa mulai 20 August 2002 iaitu tarikh mesyuarat Lembaga Tatatertib, Kontinjen Johor di bawah Peraturan 38, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993. ... [14] Only regs 33, 37 and 38 of the said Regulations are relevant in this appeal. The said letter clearly informed the appellant that the disciplinary authority received a report from his head of department stating that the appellant was convicted of an offence under s 222 of the Penal Code in the magistrate's court at Batu Pahat and the sentence imposed. This would denote that the procedure pursuant to reg 33 was religiously adhered to by the appellant's head of department..." [53] Peguam Pemohon menghujahkan bahawa surat tersebut hanyalah menyatakan bahawa "setelah mempertimbangkan dengan teliti memutuskan tuan bersalah..." tanpa menyatakan apa yang dipertimbangkan dan dokumen apa yang diterima untuk proses menimbang sebelum membuat keputusan pembuangan kerja Pemohon serat perakuan apakah yang dikemukakan oleh Ketua Jabatan. Oleh itu, adalah jelas bahawa pihak Lembaga Tatatertib telah gagal mematuhi peruntukan Peraturan 33 (2) PPPA (K&T) 1993 dengan tidak menyatakan secara terperinci dokumen yang telah diteliti sebelum mencapai keputusan yang telah diputuskan terhadap Pemohon yang mana menjadikan hukuman buang kerja Pemohon adalah terbatal dan tidak sah. S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [54] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa kes Subramanyam Sannasy (supra) yang dirujuk oleh peguam Pemohon bukanlah nas yang mewajibkan pihak Ketua Jabatan menyatakan apakah perakuan yang telah dikemukakan kepada Responden 2. Apa yang menjadi keperluan di dalam peruntukan tersebut adalah dokumen- dokumen termasuk perakuan Ketua Jabatan telah dikemukakan. [55] Ini telah dilaksanakan oleh Responden 1 dan diakui oleh Responden 2. Ia bagi pandangan Mahkamah adalah mencukupi dan mematuhi Peraturan 32 dan 33 PPPA (K&T). [56] Isu yang sama telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Shuib bin Abdul Samad @ Zainal v Tan Sri Dato Seri Khalid bin Abu Bakar & ors [2017] 4 MLJ 476 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan; “[22] Regulation 33(1) provides for the consideration of Disciplinary Authority in cases of conviction and detention. Subregulation (1) specifically refers to 'report', 'records of service' and 'the Head of Department's recommendation' forwarded under sub-reg. 29(2). The fact that the second respondent averred in para. 5.6 of the affidavit to 'menerima perakuan tindakan tatatertib' under sub-reg. 33(1), in our view would necessarily have entailed the receipt of the documents forwarded pursuant to sub-reg. 29(2). We therefore found no error of law or fact in the learned Judicial Commissioner's finding on the issues concerning regs. 29(2) and 33(1) of the 1993 Regulations.” S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [57] Sehubungan itu, isu ini bagi pandangan Mahkamah adalah tidak bermerit. Isu (e); kegagalan Keua Jabatan untuk mendeposkan afidavit [58] Selanjutnya peguam Pemohon turut mengemukakan bantahan ke atas afidavit yang hanya difailkan oleh Dato' Sri Haji Mustafar bin Haji Ali di atas kapasitinya sebagai Pengerusi Responden 2. [59] Mahkamah walaubagaimanapun berpegang kepada keputusan di dalam kes Dominic Selvam a/l S Gnanaprogasam v. Kerajaan Malaysia & ors [2007] 2 MLJ 761 yang telah memutuskan seperti berikut; "[17] All the documents exhibited in the affidavit in enclosure 25 showed a series of events in the plaintiff's service history. All the documents were signed and issued by different personnel at different places. Allaudeen is presently in charge and he has access to all the records of service of the plaintiff. Indeed Allaudeen is a qualified person to affirm and depose to all the facts in the affidavit in enclosure 25. No facts in this case are within the knowledge of any particular individual or officer. All the facts pertaining to the plaintiff's matter are documented and they are available as records kept by the defendants. Allaudeen, in my judgment, is a qualified person and he is the right person to affirm the affidavit in enclosure 25. Allaudeen has signed the affidavit in enclosure 25 S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 (Anderson v. Slather [1845] 9 Jur. 1085) before the Commissioner for Oaths ( Ex p. Heymann [1872] L R 7 Ch 488) and that affidavit is certainly admissible in evidence." [60] Berdasarkan kepada kes ini, Mahkamah merumuskan bahawa isu yang terakhir ini adalah turut tidak bermerit. Kesimpulan [61] Bersandarkan kepada analisis yang telah dinyatakan, Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa telah terdapat satu kepincangan prosedur telah berlaku di dalam keputusan oleh Responden ke atas Pemohon. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah membenarkan permohonan ini dan memerintahkan perintah seperti dipohon di perenggan (a) hingga (e) di Kandungan 6 tanpa sebarang perintah berkaitan kos. Bertarikh : 17hb. Januari, 2024 (DATUK MOHAMAD ABAZAFREE BIN MOHD ABBAS) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Pihak-Pihak: Bagi Pihak Pemohon : Shaharuddin bin Mohamed Tetuan Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwarliz Lot 224, Tingkat 1, Seksyen 24 Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Lundang 15050 Kota Bharu Kelantan Bagi Pihak Responden : Ahmad Armi Najamuddin bin Azmi Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan Tingkat Bawah, Blok 5 Kota Darulnaim 15050 Kota Bharu Kelantan Tarikh Bicara : 23hb. November, 2023 Tarikh Keputusan : 23hb. November, 2023 S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 Undang-Undang Yang Dirujuk: ➢ Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ➢ Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 ➢ Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 ➢ Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan & Tatatertib) 1993 ➢ Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam 1993 Kes-Kes Yang Dirujuk: ➢ Wira Swire Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2019] 1 LNS 1026 ➢ Peguam Negara Malaysia v. Chin Chee Kow & Another Appeal [2019] 4 CLJ 561; [2019] MLJU 202 ➢ T Ganeswaran lwn. Suruhanjaya Polis Diraja Malaysia & Satu Lagi [2005] 3 CLJ 302 ➢ Rohana bte Ariffin & Anor v. Universiti Sains Malaysia [1988] 2 CLJ (Rep) 390; [1988] 1 CLJ 559 ➢ Mohd Shukri Roslan Iwn. Dato' Sri Hj Mustafar Hj Ali & Yang Lain [2022] 6 CLJ 253; [2022] MLRHU 561 ➢ Benjamin William Hawkes v. PP [2020] 8 CLJ 267; [2020] 5 MLJ 417 ➢ Public Services Commision Malaysia & anor v. Vickneswary RM Santhivelu [2008] 6 CLJ 573; [2008] 2 MLRA 273 ➢ Marzuki Abdul Aziz v. Ketua Polis Negara & Anor [2003] 3 CLJ 315 ➢ Dato' Saadon Othman v. Lembaga Tatatertib Awam Kumpulan Pengurusan (No 1) & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 980 S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 ➢ Subramanyam Sannasy v. SAC II Syed Alwi Syed Hamid & Anor [2010] 2 CLJ 677 ➢ Shuib bin Abdul Samad @ Zainal v Tan Sri Dato Seri Khalid bin Abu Bakar & ors [2017] 4 MLJ 476 ➢ Dominic Selvam a/l S Gnanaprogasam v. Kerajaan Malaysia & ors [2007] 2 MLJ 761 S/N NjB5eanQHkGKy6wmV7gXRQ **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 Tetuan Chiong & Partners RESPONDEN Tetuan Kit & Associates

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

18/01/2024

YA Puan Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi

BA-25-84-12/2022

PEMOHON CHEAH YEN KHEE RESPONDEN 1. ) MOHD ALWI BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

This is an application for judicial review by the applicant in respect of the decision by the Management Department (Service/Staffing) of the Royal Malaysia Police (“PDRM”) delivered vide their letter where the applicant’s application to be promoted to the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (“ASP”) on a “personal to holder” basis (secara khas untuk penyandang) (“KUP”) (“the Applicant’s ASP Application”) was rejected

18/01/2024

YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d23d6102-01ae-4d27-a7bb-69f57ecdf7af&Inline=true

1 BA-25-84-12/2022 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-84-12/2022 Dalam perkara satu permohonan oleh Cheah Yen Khee untuk memohon satu Perintah certiorari/deklarasi mencabar keputusan Responden menolak permintaan penyelarasan kenaikan pangkat sebagai Cif Inspektor dan seterusnya kepada Penolong Penguasa Polis Secara Khas Untuk Penyandang (KUP) yang ditolak oleh Responden Pertama melalui surat bertarikh 26.9.2022; Dan Dalam Perkara Para 4.1, 6 dan 8 Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 8 tahun 2003 dibaca bersama Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 25 Tahun 2009; Dan Dalam Perkara Skim Perkhidmatan Awam mengenai kelulusan Khas Kenaikan Pangkat Cif Inspektor ke Jawatan ASP KUP rujukan JPA.BK(S)328/2/14 Jld.3(37) bertarikh 4 Disember 2013 dan Arahan Perkhidmatan/Penjawatan Bil. 3 Tahun 2014 bertarikh 5 Februari 2014; Dan 18/01/2024 14:54:32 BA-25-84-12/2022 Kand. 26 S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BA-25-84-12/2022 Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam (Permohonan Semakan No.: 13- 11- 2009); Dan Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Rayuan (Rayuan Sivil No: B-01-258-11); Dan Dalam Perkara Dalam Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia (Bidangkuasa Rayuan) Permohonan No. Sivil: 08-410- 06/2013; Dan Dalam Perkara 5, 8, 132, 135 dan 140 Perlembagaan Persekutuan; Dan Dalam Perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. ANTARA CHEAH YEN KHEE (No. Polis: G/14503) …PEMOHON DAN 1. MOHD ALWI BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN 2. SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 BA-25-84-12/2022 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an application for judicial review by the applicant, Cheah Yen Khee in respect of the decision by the Management Department (Service/Staffing) of the Royal Malaysia Police (“PDRM”) delivered vide their letter dated 26.09.2022 where the applicant’s application to be promoted to the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police (“ASP”) on a “personal to holder” basis (secara khas untuk penyandang) (“KUP”) (“the Applicant’s ASP Application”) was rejected. Salient Facts [2] The background facts to this application for judicial review is garnered from the documents filed by parties. The applicant had the opportunity of being promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector but for a disciplinary action taken against him vide case No. (PR) SEL/KST 189/2004 (BPR PUTRAJAYA RPT: 093/04) and (PR) SEL/KST 30/2005 (BT.9 RPT 3121/05) (“the Disciplinary Action”). [3] The applicant contended that the applicant should have been promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector on the basis of the “Procedures for the Promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector and Lans Corporal in relation to the Service Circular No. 8 of year 2003 dated 14.02.2005” (“the 2005 Procedures”). The enabling circular of the 2005 Procedures Service Circular No. 8 of year 2003 (“the 2003 Circular”) also employed similar wordings in Rule 15 of Annexure A to the 2003 Circular entitled “Police Senior Officer Service Scheme”. S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 BA-25-84-12/2022 [4] Following disciplinary action against the applicant, the applicant was found guilty and was subsequently dismissed. The applicant filed an action to review the said decision in the High Court (“the 2009 High Court case”). On 09.03.2011, the High Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. The respondents in the 2009 High Court case appealed to the Court of Appeal which was dismissed, and the respondents subsequent appeal to the Federal Court was withdrawn prior to the application for leave to appeal was heard. [5] On 28.04.2016, the applicant was instructed to return to service in the PDRM. [6] The applicant contends that other than being reinstated to the PDRM force, the applicant should have been promoted to the rank of ASP on a KUP basis. Upon the applicant’s fruitless attempts on requesting the same on various occasions, the applicant wrote to the Inspector General of the PDRM on 18.12.2019. [7] In essence, the applicant averred that, pursuant to the outcome of the 2009 High Court case, it shall be deemed that the applicant was not involved in any disciplinary action at all, and it follows that notwithstanding the 2003 Circular had been abolished when the applicant has been cleared of any disciplinary action on 09.03.2011, the applicant should be entitled to be promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector and such promotion should take effect on the date the applicant is eligible in the year 2005. In other words, it is the position of the applicant that the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is a “time based” promotion and a matter as of right, 2 years after the applicant being confirmed in service (on the sixth year of service). S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 BA-25-84-12/2022 [8] It follows that the applicant is entitled to be promoted to the rank of ASP KUP due to the applicant’s entitlement to being promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector as aforementioned or that the applicant being deemed to have held the rank of Chief Inspector prior to the enforcement of the 2009 Circular. [9] The respondents, as evident in the 26.09.2022 decision, took the opposite position. Law relating to Judicial Review [10] The grounds for an application for judicial review are illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality. These grounds were laid down by Lord Diplock in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions & Ors v. Minister of Civil Service [1985] AC 374 which was adopted by the Federal Court in the case of R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 as follows: “In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp. 410- 411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. This is how he put it: By 'illegality' as a ground for Judicial Review I mean that the decision maker must understand directly the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of a dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exercisable. By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 BA-25-84-12/2022 (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the courts' exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] AC 14, of irrationality as a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though undefinable mistake of law by the decision maker. 'Irrationality' by now can stand on its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by Judicial Review. I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety' rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failing to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to Judicial Review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. Lord Diplock also mentioned 'proportionality' as a possible fourth ground of review which called for development.” [Emphasis added] S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 BA-25-84-12/2022 [11] In the Federal Court case of Akira Sales & Service (M) Sdn Bhd v. Nadiah Zee Abdullah and another appeal [2018] 2 CLJ 513; [2018] 3 MLRA 589; [2018] 2 MELR 337; [2018] 2 MLJ 537, the liberal approach on judicial review in R. Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 147; [1997] 1 MLJ 145; [1996] 1 MLRA725; [1997] 1 AMR 433 was re-emphasized. [12] In addition, a decision that involves an error of law is subject to judicial review. This was explained by the Federal Court in the case of Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v. Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 CLJ 65; [1999] 1 MLRA336; [1999] 3 AMR 3529; [1999] 3 MLJ 1, as follows: “In our view, therefore, unless there are special circumstances governing a particular case, notwithstanding a privative clause, of the 'not to be challenged, etc’ kind, judicial review will lie to impeach all errors of law made by an administrative body or tribunal and, we would add, inferior courts. In the words of Lord Denning in Pearlman v. Harrow School (ibid) at p 70, ... no court or tribunal has any jurisdiction to make an error of law on which the decision in the case depends. If it makes such an error, it goes outside its jurisdiction and certiorari will lie to correct it.” [Emphasis added] [13] Founded on the law relating to judicial review, this court will now consider the grounds put forth by the applicant. S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BA-25-84-12/2022 Decision [14] This court will now proceed to consider the grounds raised by the applicant as follows: (i) Issue on the Promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector [15] The first ground pertaining to the rejection of the applicant’s application to be promoted to the rank of ASP KUP is that the rank of Chief Inspector has been abolished pursuant to the 2009 Circular. [16] In this regard, the applicant contends that the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is a “time based” promotion and the respondents ought to have taken into account that the applicant is deemed to be free from any disciplinary action in the year 2005 which is the year the applicant became eligible pursuant to the 2005 Procedures, and is entitled to the rank of Chief Inspector. [17] In this regard and for ease of reference, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 15 of the Police Senior Office Service Scheme (“the 2003 Circular Service Scheme”) as follows: “KEMAJUAN KE PANGKAT KETUA INSPEKTOR 15. Inspektor adalah layak dipertimbang untuk kemajuan ke pangkat Ketua Inspektor apabila telah diperaku oleh Pegawai Memerintahnya bahawa dari segi prestasi kerja dan kelakuan ia telah membuktikan kebolehan untuk maju seterusnya dalam perkhidmatannya.” S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 BA-25-84-12/2022 [18] A perusal of the said Rule 15 of the 2003 Circular Service Scheme demonstrates the phares used is “to be considered” (dipertimbang). According to Kamus Dewan Edisi Keempat, dipertimbang carries the meaning of “memikirkan untuk membuat kesimpulan (keputusan dan lain-lain)” (to think to make a conclusion (decision or others)) or “memikirkan (merenungkan) dengan teliti akan baik buruk sesuatu” (to think (to brood) about carefully of the pros and cons of something). This, in the view of this court, connotes that the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is not something as of right as it has to first be considered thoroughly by the relevant authority. If it was the intention of the body who drafted the 2003 Circular Service Scheme that the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is an entitlement rather than a matter of eligibility, the word “dipertimbang” would have been excluded from Rule 15 of the 2003 Circular Service Scheme. [19] The procedures in relation to the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is stipulated in the 2005 Procedures. The position of the PDRM in the 2005 Procedures in respect of the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is in line with the 2003 Circular Service Scheme where in Paragraph 5 of the 2005 Procedures stipulates that the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector will only be considered after the candidate is truly eligible and suitable (“kemajuan ke pangkat Cif Inspektor … hanya akan dipertimbangkan setelah calon benar-benar layak dan sesuai”). [20] There is nothing in the 2003 Circular Service Scheme which indicates that the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is a “time- based” promotion or that the promotion is a matter as of right. Rather, there are certain criteria to be fulfilled. The second part of S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 BA-25-84-12/2022 Rule 15 of the 2003 Circular Service Scheme stipulates that only after being supported (memperakukan) by the Inspector in question’s Commanding Officer that the said Inspector has proven his capability to be subsequently promoted in his service in terms of his work performance and behaviour, is the said Inspector then eligible to be considered in the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector. [21] The 2005 Procedures laid down more conditions. In Paragraph 4.2 of the 2005 Procedures, it stated that candidates have to be free from any investigation/disciplinary or court action during the evaluation period (“Calon-calon hendaklah bebas dari sebarang siasatan/tatatertib dan mahkamah di dalam tempoh penilaian”). Paragraph 6 of the 2005 Procedures further stated that the fourth and fifth year of the Inspector in question’s service shall be the period for evaluation of his duty performance before being considered to be promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector (“Bagi Inspektor pula, … tahun keempat dan tahun kelimat sebagai Penilaian Prestasi Tugas sebelum dapat dipertimbang dimajukan ke pangkat Cif Inspektor”). [22] It is not disputed by the parties that during the period for evaluation, the applicant was subjected to investigation. The applicant was further subjected to Disciplinary Action and was subsequently dismissed. The applicant was only reinstated in the year 2016. Notwithstanding that pursuant to the outcome of the 2009 High Court case, the applicant was deemed to be free from any disciplinary action in the year 2005, it cannot be gainsaid that the applicant was in fact, ineligible, let alone be considered, to be promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector. S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 BA-25-84-12/2022 [23] The applicant did not challenge the outcome that the applicant was not promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector at that material time. Can the applicant now claim that the outcome of the 2009 High Court case applies retrospectively and, that the applicant ought to be promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector. [24] In this regard, reference is made to the Police Messenger Form (“Borang Utusan Polis”) dated 26.05.2005. The relevant contents of the said Form can be reproduced as follows: “… kemajuan pangkat pegawai ini tidak dapat diproses (.) setelah disemak didapati pengawai ini terlibat dalam penyiasatan/tindakan tatatertib … … kemukakan perakuan baru apabila pegawai ini bebas dari penyiasatan/tindakan tatatertib dan disokong oleh ketua jabatan (.)” [25] From the above excerpt it is apparent that, a new certification (“perakuan baru”) is to be produced when (“apabila”) the applicant is free from investigation/disciplinary action and is supported by the Head of Department. Pursuant to the 2005 Procedures, there is nothing on the part of the applicant to submit in the process of the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector. Rather, a Certificate of Support of Promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector (“Sijil Perakuan Kemajuan ke Pangkat Cif Inspektor”) is to be signed by the applicant’s Commanding Officer and further supported by the Police S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 BA-25-84-12/2022 Chief, before finally being approved or disapproved by the Chairman of the Evaluation Committee (Chief Inspector). [26] Hence, the applicant’s promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector is non-existence at all as so long as the disciplinary action. [27] Only after the applicant had cleared the applicant’s name, will the applicant be eligible to the rank of Chief Inspector pursuant to the 2003 Circular and upon the production of a new certification on behalf of the applicant in accordance with the manner stipulated in the 2005 Procedures. Such condition was met on 09.03.2011 when the 2009 High Court case decided in the applicant’s favour. This is after the 2003 Circular was abolished pursuant to the 2009 Circular. [28] On 09.03.2011, the rank of Chief Inspector is no longer in existence. [29] It is pertinent to note that the applicant did not challenge the content of the said Police Messenger Form. In fact, the applicant acknowledged the contents therein and relied on it in support of his application before this court. [30] In the view of this court, it cannot be that since the applicant is deemed to be free from any disciplinary action in the year 2005, the applicant should be entitled to the rank of Chief Inspector. It cannot be disputed that as at 09.03.2011 which is the date the applicant became eligible under the 2003 Circular, the 2003 Circular ceased to be in force. It follows therefore that there is no committee which is in existence for the purpose of promoting the applicant to the rank of Chief Inspector. S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 BA-25-84-12/2022 [31] In any event, in order to be promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector, the applicant has to be eligible during the period that 2003 Circular is in force. [32] Furthermore, it is noted that neither the 2003 Circular nor the 2005 Procedures mentioned if they apply to only certain Inspectors which are appointed in a certain years. [33] The applicant relied on the case of Noormala bt Chor v. Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) dan lain-lain [2017] MLJU 1125. However, this court is of the considered view Noormala bt Chor’s (supra) case can be distinguish with the case at hand as the High Court in that case did not expressly deal with the issue of promotion in rank which is not a matter as of right but a prerogative. [34] Therefore, it light of the aforementioned, this court is satisfied there is nothing illegal or irrational in the 26.09.2022 decision. [35] The above position is further strengthened by the applicant in taking up the option to be subjected to the 2009 Circular (which effectively abolishes the rank of Chief Inspector and the 2003 Circular). This was not denied by the applicant. The 2009 Circular is not produced by any of the parties in this court, but “Gred “YA13”” is a grading system introduced under the 2009 Circular, and Enclosure J1 and Enclosure J2 is the ones annexed with the 2009 Circular. In this regard, this court agrees with the learned Senior Federal Counsel that the applicant cannot approbate and reprobate by submitting to the benefits of the new salary scheme but at the same time demand for the benefits under the 2003 Circular. S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 BA-25-84-12/2022 Issue on the Applicant’s rights to be promoted to ASP KUP [36] In light of the above, this court is satisfied that the issue of applicant’s entitlement to the rank of Chief Inspector becomes a non-issue. [37] Pursuant to the 2014 Order, those who had been in the rank of Chief Inspector prior to the enforcement of the 2009 Circular had been granted a special approval to be promoted on a personal to holder basis. The applicant was never a Chief Inspector prior to being reappointed to the rank of Inspector pursuant to the 2009 Circular. This is notwithstanding that the applicant has opted to be subjected to the 2009 Circular. [38] The promotion to the rank of ASP pursuant to the 2014 Order is on a personal to holder basis. In other words, this promotion scheme is not available to all Inspectors but rather, certain Inspectors who had been in the rank of Chief Inspector. It is also worth mentioning that, the promotion to the rank of ASP under the 2014 Order is also, similar to the promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector under the 2003 Circular, is subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the eligible officers shall apply for the promotion as evident in Paragraph 5.2 of the 2014 Order. [39] The applicant further stated that the applicant’s constitutional rights has been infringed as the applicant’s fate is not the same to those 1474 persons who had been promoted and that the applicant has been discriminated. [40] This court is of the considered view that this argument does not hold water as there is no evidence before the court that those 1474 S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 BA-25-84-12/2022 persons were subjected to disciplinary proceedings during the enforceability of the 2003 Circular but was nonetheless was considered and promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector. The issue on “lain-lain faedah” [41] The applicant averred that the phrase “lain-lain faedah” in the relief b. of the Judgement dated 09.03.2011 pursuant to the outcome of the 2009 High Court case applies to the promotion in rank. [42] The respondents submitted otherwise. Citing the High Court case of Mohd Khurshaid Bin Ramjan Din v. Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara dan satu lagi [1998] MLJU 240, the principle of ejusdem generis applies where the phrase “lain-lain faedah” should be construed to be limited to its foregoing phrases namely emoluments, allowance and salary. [43] This court agrees with this contention by the respondent. It is the view of this court that the phrase employed namely “emoluments”, “allowance” and “salary” have the same characteristic namely matters as of right, the phrase “lain-lain faedah” ought to be construed in that sense. [44] Notwithstanding the foregoing, as stated earlier, a promotion in rank is not a matter as of right and therefore the relief b. cannot be construed to include the right of the applicant to be promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector and subsequently to the rank of ASP KUP. This proposition was further supported in view that there is nothing before this court that in the 2009 High Court case had given due consideration on the issue of the applicant’s promotion to the rank S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 BA-25-84-12/2022 of Chief Inspector and therefore it cannot be lawful to assert that the High Court had made such order which was not duly considered. Conclusion [45] For the aforementioned reasons, this court is satisfied there is no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety which would allow this court to allow this application for judicial review. This application for judicial review is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Date: 18 January 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 BA-25-84-12/2022 Counsels: - For the applicant Mohaji bin Selamat, TETUAN MOHAJI HAZURY & ISMAIL Advocates & Solicitors No. 32M, Tingkat 1, Jalan Zirkon E/7E, Seksyen 7, 40000 Shah Alam Selangor. +6 03 5510 1743 mhipartners@gmail.com For the respondent Noerazlim binti Saidil KAMAR PENASIHAT UNDANG-UNDANG NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah, 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor. +6 03 5544 7183 noerazlim@agc.gov.my S/N AmE90q4BJ02nu2n1fs33rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-12B-45-08/2022

PERAYU MOHD HELMI BIN MAT NAWI RESPONDEN 1. ) DHARMALINGAM A/L SAHAYAM 2. ) HANSON BUILDING MATERIALS MALAYSIA SDN BHD

- in this case the appellant who was the plaintiff in the court below sued the respondents/defendants for damages in a running down matter - no appealable error in the decision of the learned SCJ - an appellate court should be slow to disturb the findings of facts by the court below

18/01/2024

YA Datuk Aslam Bin Zainuddin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a24e6e24-b9ab-4029-9652-32015838eed0&Inline=true

180124-Mohd Helmi Mat Nawi v Dharmalingam Page 1 of 15 MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM CIVIL APPEAL NO. JA-12B-45-08/2022 BETWEEN MOHD HELMI BIN MAT NAWI …APPELLANT AND 1. DHARMALINGAM A/L SAHAYAM 2. HANSON BUILDING MATERIALS MALAYSIA SDN BHD …RESPONDENTS [IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA SUMMONS NO: JA-A53KJ-718-10/2021 BETWEEN MOHD HELMI BIN MAT NAWI …PLAINTIFF AND 1. DHARMALINGAM A/L SAHAYAM 2. HANSON BUILDING MATERIALS MALAYSIA SDN BHD …DEFENDANTS] 18/01/2024 13:09:10 JA-12B-45-08/2022 Kand. 25 S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 15 GROUNDS OF DECISION [1] In this case the appellant who was the plaintiff in the court below sued the respondents/defendants for damages in a running down matter. At the time of the accident the appellant/plaintiff was riding motorcycle JKY1007 while the first respondent/defendant was driving a lorry bearing registration number BLP 5291. Only the appellant/plaintiff and 1st respondent/defendant gave evidence in the Sessions Court. At the end of the trial in the Sessions Court the learned Sessions Court judge (“SCJ”) dismissed the appellant/plaintiff’s claim. The appellant/plaintiff being dissatisfied, appealed to the High Court against the decision of the learned SCJ. After perusing the appeal records, the grounds of decision by the SCJ, the written submissions of parties and hearing oral submissions of both counsel in this appeal, I agreed with the decision of the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal with costs of RM3,000.00. Hence the further appeal to the Court of Appeal. [2] The learned SCJ in her grounds of decision regarding the facts of the case said as follows: “Versi Plaintif i. Keterangan plaintif semasa pemeriksaan utama mengenai kemalangan ini ialah: “Pada 23.2.2018 jam lebih kurang 1215 p.m. saya menunggang motorsikal no. JKY 1007 dari Kg. Ubi ke Sri Bahagia. Apabila saya sampai di persimpangan Jalan Tampoi, semasa lampu isyarat berwarna hijau S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 15 di laluan saya, saya jalan terus dan tiba-tiba sebuah motorlori no. BLP 5291 keluar dari simpang kanan dan membelok ke kanan secara mengejut. Saya cuba mengelak, namun terlanggar juga bahagian tepi kiri lori tersebut”. ii. Plaintif membuat laporan polis pada 6.4.2018. Penjelasan kelewatan membuat laporan polis, plaintif memberi alasan beliau mengalami kecederaan dan tiada orang yang boleh membawa beliau ke balai polis untuk membuat laporan. iii. Semasa disoal balas, plaintif mengaku sebelum kemalangan, plaintif tidak nampak motorlori defendan pertama. Plaintif hanya sedar motorlori defendan pertama setelah perlanggaran berlaku dan plaintif juga tidak tahu arah perjalanan motorlori defendan pertama. Plaintif juga mengaku tidak berhenti sebelum masuk simpang lampu isyarat kerana plaintif tidak menunggang dengan laju. Plaintif juga menyatakan plaintif mula nampak lampu isyarat hijau semasa dalam jarak 300 meter sebelum simpang. iv. Plaintif mengaku beliau ada disaman oleh pegawai penyiasat kes atas kesalahan langgar lampu isyarat merah tapi menafikan beliau ada melanggar lampu merah. Menurut plaintif lagi pegawai penyiasat telah keluarkan saman terhadapnya selepas plaintif membuat laporan polis. Plaintif tidak membayar saman tersebut kerana memprotes keputusan pegawai penyiasat tersebut. S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 15 Versi Defendan i. Keterangan awal defendan pertama adalah seperti berikut: “Semasa saya sampai di Jalan Tampoi Persimpangan Jalan Tampoi Susur 1, lampu isyarat hijau, saya pun membelok ke kanan, tiba-tiba sebuah motorsikal no. JKY 1007 datang dari kiri dan telah melanggar bahagian tepi kiri motorlori saya”. ii. Keterangan lanjut defendan pertama ialah semasa kemalangan, motorlori defendan telah masuk simpang kanan sebelum motorsikal plaintif melanggar bahagian sisi kiri motorlori dan terjatuh di belakang motorlori. Defendan pertama juga bersetuju bahawa merujuk kepada rajah kasar lokasi kemalangan adalah di A-A1 seperti yang dilukis oleh pegawai penyiasat. iii. Semasa disoal balas, defendan pertama tidak bersetuju kemalangan berlaku kerana defendan pertama melanggar lampu merah. Defendan pertama juga tidak bersetuju bahawa beliau tidak berhenti di persimpangan sebelum masuk ke simpang. Menurut defendan pertama semasa sampai di persimpangan lampu isyarat, beliau ada berhenti sebelum membelok ke kanan walaupun perkara ini tidak dinyatakan di dalam laporan polisnya. Defendan pertama juga menafikan cadangan peguambela plaintif bahawa semasa kemalangan badan motorlori defendan pertama belum melepasi petak kuning. S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 15 [3] The sketch plan in this case was as below: S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 15 [4] The SCJ in her judgment on the issue of liability said as follows: “i. Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan plaintif dan berpendapat versi kemalangan plaintif ini tidak konsisten dan diragui kesahihannya. Plaintif menyatakan mula-mula nampak lampu isyarat berwarna hijau di laluannya dalam jarak 300 meter lagi. Plaintif juga mendakwa menunggang di dalam kelajuan munasabah pada ketika itu iaitu dalam 70 km/jam. Dalam keadaan demikian, sudah tentu plaintif boleh melihat kehadiran motorlori defendan pertama yang datang dari arah bertentangan memandangkan tiada apa- apa halangan pandangan di hadapan plaintif. Namun begitu plaintif menyatakan tidak tahu motorlori defendan pertama datang dari arah mana dan tidak nampak motorlori defendan pertama sehinggalah plaintif berlanggar dengannya. ii. Pada hemat Mahkamah plaintif sebenarnya tidak peka dan tidak memberikan perhatian kepada jalan raya sehingga tidak menyedari kehadiran motorlori defendan pertama asebelum memasuki simpang lampu isyarat tersebut meskipun plaintif boleh melihat sehingga 300 meter ke hadapan tanpa ada apa-apa halangan. iii. Untuk membuktikan kesnya, peguam plaintif turut berhujah pelanggaran berlaku di dalam petak kuning dan bukannya di luar petak kuning seperti keterangan defendan pertama. iv. Mahkamah tidak memastikan tempat sebenar pelanggaran sama ada di luar atau di dalam petak kuning melainkan seperti mana yang ditandakan oleh pegawai penyiasat asal di dalam Rajah Kasar bahawa pelanggaran berlaku di S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 15 antara A-A1. Hanya pegawai penyiasat asal yang boleh mengesahkan sama ada hal ini ada disiasat oleh beliau ataupun tidak tetapi malangnya pegawai penyiasat tidak hadir memberi keterangan. v. Namun begitu pihak-pihak bersetuju bahawa kemalangan berlaku di kawasan A-A1 di dalam Rajah Kasar tersebut. Mahkamah mendapati jika kemalangan berlaku di A-A1, maka ini menunjukkan motorlori defendan pertama sudah masuk ke persimpangan lampu isyarat tersebut dan sudah menghampiri mulut simpang Jalan Tampoi Susur. Ini konsisten dengan pelanggaran pada sisi sebelah kiri motorlori iaitu lebih kepada bahagian belakang sisi kiri. Ini menunjukkan motorlori sudah hampir menegak untuk masuk ke Jalan Tampoi Utama. vi. Jika motorlori defendan pertama berada di A-A1 sebelum dilanggar oleh motorsikal plaintif maka Mahkamah mendapati plaintif sepatutnya sudah sedar kehadiran motorlori sebelum memasuki simpang lampu isyarat tersebut. Ini kerana tiada halangan pandangan sejauh 300 meter untuk plaintif melihat dan menyedari kehadiran motorlori defendan pertama. Oleh yang demikian, keterangan plaintif bahawa lampu isyarat laluannya adalah hijau dan beliau meneruskan perjalanan kerana tiada kenderaan di hadapan adalah meragukan. Mahkamah berpendapat plaintif tidak memberitahu keadaan yang sebenarnya di dalam kes ini. S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 15 vii. Selain itu, dapatan Mahkamah itu disokong oleh fakta bahawa plaintif telah disaman selepas membuat laporan polis. Semasa disoal balas plaintif tidak bersetuju bahawa beliau disaman kerana melanggar lampu merah. Plaintif memberitahu beliau enggan membayar saman tersebut kerana berpendapat beliau tidak melanggar lampu merah dan mengakibatkan kemalangan tersebut. SP1 juga menyatakan ‘saya tak nak bayar dulu buat sementara’.” [5] The SCJ made a finding regarding the defendants’ evidence as follows: “i. Selain itu, Mahkamah juga mendapat keterangan defendan pertama adalah konsisten dengan laporan polisnya serta keterangan pada Rajah Kasar yang dilukis oleh pegawai penyiasat. Laporan polis defendan pertama dibuat 42 minit selepas kemalangan berlaku iaitu semasa kejadian masih lagi segar di dalam ingatan defendan pertama. Keterangan tempat di mana motorsikal melanggar motorlori defendan pertama iaitu di bahagian sisi kiri (lebih kepada bahagian belakang sisi kiri bukan depan ataupun tengah) menyokong keterangan defendan pertama. Ini menunjukkan motorsikal plaintif yang melanggar motorlori defendan pertama bukannya motorlori defendan pertama yang melanggar motorsikal. Sekiranya defendan pertama yang melanggar motorsikal plaintif, maka sudah pasti ada kerosakan motorlori berada di bahagian depan. ii. Kesimpulannya, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa versi kemalangan yang dikemukakan oleh defendan pertama adalah lebih berkemungkinan berbanding versi plaintif. Di S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 15 atas imbangan kebarangkalian Mahkamah mendapati plaintif telah gagal membuktikan defendan pertama cuai di dalam kes ini. Sebaliknya Mahkamah mendapati plaintif yang sepenuhnya menyumbang cuai apabila melanggar lampu isyarat merah dan melanggar motorlori defendan pertama. [6] The Malaysian Civil Procedure (White Book) 2018 edition states: “By virtue of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 29, all civil appeals from a subordinate court shall be by way of re-hearing. The High Court has similar powers and jurisdiction on the hearing of appeals as the Court of Appeal has on the hearing of appeals from the High Court. It is trite that an appellate court will not interfere with the findings of a trial judge since the latter had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses and assessing their ability to tell the truth. An appellate court will only interfere if it can be demonstrated that the trial judge had: (1) committed a misdirection of law; (2) drawn wrong inferences from the facts; (3) made a finding which was perverse and unsupported by evidence; or (4) misconstrued crucial evidence, resulting in evidence of uncertain quality of one party being put in a favourable light and the consistency of the opposing party being disregarded. Where there is no such error present, the court will dismiss the appeal.” S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 15 [7] In Topaiwah v Salleh [1968] 1 MLJ 284; the Federal Court held: “So far as this court is concerned we should, to paraphrase Greer L.J. in Flint Levell [1935] 1 KB 354 360 be disinclined to reverse the finding of a trial judge as to the amount of damages merely because we think that if we had tried the case in the first instance we would have given a lesser sum. To justify reversing him, we should be convinced that he acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage. The assessments which the courts have made over the years form some guide to the kind of figure which is proper and which the appellate court will follow in the light of the special facts of each particular case.” [8] In the case of United Plywood And Sawmill Ltd v Lock Ngan Loi [1970] 2 MLJ 237; the Federal Court speaking through Gill FCJ was of the view: “As has been said again and again, the assessment of damages in cases of personal injury is one of the most difficult things for either a judge in the first instance or a Court of Appeal. When a man has lost his arm there is no sum in the world that can in the true sense compensate for it. Yet compensation in the form of money is the only way in which he can be granted redress for the injury he has suffered. It is neither possible nor desirable for damages for the loss of an arm to be standardised or rigidly classified, as no two cases are ever alike. But in order to maintain some semblance of uniformity, the amounts awarded in S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 15 past cases, which bear reasonable comparison with the case under review, should serve as a useful guide. The general principle is that an appellate court can only interfere with an assessment if it is considered so inordinately low or inordinately high as to make the court exclaim, "Good gracious, is that the sum which has been awarded – that sum must be altered", or if it is so much out of line with the discernible trend or pattern of awards in reasonably comparable cases that it must be regarded as a wholly erroneous estimate.” [9] In the Federal Court case of UEM Group Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2010] 9 CLJ 785; Raus Sharif FCJ (as he then was) opined: “[26] ……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 LNS 32; Watt or Thomas v. Thomas [1947] AC 484; and Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2004] 4 CLJ 309)” …… [40] Speaking on appellate intervention, we feel a need to remind that a trial judge has the advantage over an appellate court in hearing the witness and observing his demeanour. Thus, a finding on a witness's credibility based on his demeanour S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 15 is a personal opinion of a trial judge who had the audio- visual advantage of the performance of witnesses. It should not, ordinarily be disturbed at the appellate stage. This is especially so in the instant case where the trial judge had found that Seow, the only witness put forth by GIE, was not a witness of truth. The trial judge had given reasons as to why he found that "Seow's evidence is bristled with inconsistencies and half truth". We think in the circumstances of the reasons given by the trial judge, the findings are entitled to great respect.” [10] In the Court of Appeal case of Beldeu Singh v Dr Kenneth Andrew [2011] 4 MLJ 769; it was held: “[18] We are mindful of the fact that an appellate court does not have the audio visual advantage which the trial court has, in seeing, hearing and assessing the witnesses at the trial. Hence, an appellate court is not likely to reverse or depart from the trial judge's finding save where he has misdirected himself: see eg Owners of Steamship Hontestroom v Owners of Steamship Sagaporack [1927] AC 37, 47 (HL); China Airlines Ltd v Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd (formely known as Maltran Air Services Corp Sdn Bhd) and another appeal [1996] 2 MLJ 517, 527E, 527I and 528A–B (FC); Powell and Wife v Streatham Manor Nursing Home [1935] AC 243 at p 250 (HL) which was followed in Chow Yee Wah & Anor v Choo Ah Pat [1978] 2 MLJ 41 at p 42 (PC).” [11] In the Court of Appeal case of P'ng Hun Sun v Dato' Yip Yee Foo [2013] 6 MLJ 523; Zawawi Salleh JCA (as he was then) stated: S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 15 “[13] Application of the correct standard review has not been proved exceedingly difficult in cases involving purely factual or purely legal questions. It is trite that the appropriate standard of review for purely legal questions is de novo review where the appellate court is not required to give deference to the rulings of the trial judge. Rather, it is free to perform its own analysis of the legal issue presented. When the finding of the trial judge is factual, however, the fact finder's decision cannot be disturbed on appeal unless the decision of the fact finder is plainly wrong (see China Airlines Ltd v Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Maltran Air Services Corp Sdn Bhd) and another appeal [1996] 2 MLJ 517; [1996] 3 CLJ 163); Zaharah A Kadir v Ramuna Bauxite Pte Ltd & Anor [2011] 1 LNS 1015, Kyros International Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2013] 2 MLJ 650; [2013] 1 LNS 1). The findings of fact of the trial judge can only be reversed when it is positively demonstrated to the appellate court that: (a) by reason of some non-direction or mix-direction or otherwise the judge erred in accepting the evidence which he or she did accept; or (b) in assessing and evaluating the evidence the judge has taken into account some mater which he or she ought not to have taken into account, or failed to take into account some matter which he or she ought to have taken into account; or (c) it unmistakenly appears from the evidence itself, or from the unsatisfactory reasons given by the judge for S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 15 accepting it, that he or she cannot have taken proper advantage of his or her having seen and heard the witnesses' or (d) in so far aside judge has relied on manner and demeanour, there are other circumstances which indicate that the evidence of the witnesses which he or she accepted is not credible, as for instance, where those witnesses have on some collateral matter deliberately given an untrue answer.” [12] Based on the record of appeal filed and the written and oral submissions by the appellant and respondents, I found no appealable error in the decision of the learned SCJ. The learned SCJ had made findings of facts as the trial court and as is trite, an appellate court should be slow to disturb the findings of facts by the court below. Ergo cadit quaestio. Dated: 18th January 2024 -Signed- (ASLAM B. ZAINUDDIN) Judge High Court in Malaya Johor Bahru Note: This judgment is subject to correction of typographical errors, grammatical mistakes and editorial formatting, if any S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 15 of 15 COUNSEL For the Appellant: Khairul Aiman bin Kamar Rozaman Messrs. G Dorai & Co Advocates & Solicitors No 7 Jln. Mawar 1, Taman Mawar 48000 Rawang Selangor For the Respondent: Norzaila Rawi Messrs. V. M. Kumaran & Co Advocates & Solicitors No. 83-1, Jln Mohd Akil 83000 Batu Pahat Johor S/N JG5Ooqu5KUCWUjIBWDju0A **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

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

18/01/2024

YA Puan Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi

WA-24NCVC-2478-08/2022

PEMOHON Tetuan Chiong & Partners RESPONDEN Tetuan Kit & Associates

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

18/01/2024

YA Puan Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4a8f2b35-5625-46b1-b581-d63c0158d88d&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 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 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: 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). 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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.” 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 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. 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 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. 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 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

PA-22NCvC-11-01/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) ARTISAN CUISINE SDN BHD 2. ) LIM LEE SHENG 3. ) LEONG KAR CHUN DEFENDAN 1. ) XI LIN GE SDN. BHD. 2. ) CH'NG POH CHYE 3. ) PHUAH SOON KEE 4. ) CH'NG CHIN KEAT 5. ) CH'NG JING WEN 6. ) CH'NG CHIN WEI

Striking out – Whether res judicata – An earlier suit filed – Similar claims, reliefs, issues, facts as the instant suit– Different parties – Whether judicial estoppel – Plaintiffs taking a different position from the earlier suit.

18/01/2024

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7863a298-ca90-4d75-8cf4-9bbc29a2264f&Inline=true

18/01/2024 10:30:22 PA-22NCvC-11-01/2023 Kand. 62 S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mKJjeJDKdU2M9Ju8KaImTw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1>A—22m:vc—11—n1/2023 Kand. 62 13/alrznzu mv2l>:22 ln the Hlgn Courl cl Malaya lfl Penang In me Sla|e or Penang, Malaysla Clvll Sun No. PA-22NCvC-11-01/2023 Between Arllssrl cuisine sun Bhd Llm Lee sneng Leong Kar Chun . Flalnlifls uN_— And xu Ge Sdn Bhd Ch‘rlg Poh Chye Pnuan soon Kee cnng Chln Ksal cnng Jung wen cnng Chin We! Delendams manna»- Grounds ol Declslorl lnlrooucnon 1. The Delendams med a Home cl applicallcn daled 24 7 2023 was Enclosure M to strike am the Plninlms' clalm Enclosure 41 ls made under Order 13 rule 19(I)(b)or1d)oHhe Rules cl Ccurl 2012. 2. on an 10 2023 I alloweo Enclosure 4! arm slruok out me Plalnmls‘ actlun agalns| lne Detenoanls. Here are lne grmmds or my declslon. Th llonsm belween me a 3. The dlreclors and snarenoloers oHl1e 1- Flalnllfl (‘F company) are (T) me 2"“ l=lalnlll1(“Pz“), (II) me 3"’ Plalnllfl1“P:“) and (ml me 4"‘ nelendanl (‘rm 4. The 5*" De1endanl(“D5’)ls the sole direclur and shareholder more 1“ Delendanl (“D compnny). 5 The relahorlshlp ol me Delenaanls are as lollows- rn mKllalDKnl.l2MwuaK2lmYw “Nair s.n.r nurlhnrwlll .. med m my r... mn.u-y mm. dnuurlml Vfl nrlurm Wm! m Ihe 2m Defendant(“F|Ilw(}ws1he1n|her el(HDJ,1ujD5 and on me an Delendam1‘|)6‘j, my lhu aw DalsvIdin|(‘IlmhI 715 me momamm; m, (up as and mm as; (cl 0:. as and us are smug; 5. The Father. lhe Mulherand D6 are nomurenors or shalehulders or P company ar D company 7 In me Instant sml, |he Fla Us auega Ihal ma Dadendanls mu eslabhshsd D oampany IO undenake the huslile |aKe - over 07 the restaurant business of P company. The Earlier § a Dr: 93.2021, P wmpany had mmaled a civil suit against (V) D mmpany, (u) D4 and (. us vide Penang Hugh coun own Sui\ Nu PA— 22NcvCAe-us/2021 Enrliorsu -) 9 The EarIiarSuIl was ansucsed olvia an omermcounaaxed 2.3.2023 made by me Penang Hugh Courl. 10. The Earlier sun had suugm tor the vouowmg rebieis “m Dskhnsl Dahawa aehmang Perlanllen Juaman »=.m.ag.an4auamsa Sme Agusmem) nnlma P\a\nWl dengan x‘ Lm Ge Sdn am (Delenflan Kedua) p a n mmpany w my msllnl sun] Ida Van (flak am am xemauax mun and may an uamayau bahawa kesemua pendapalan (mu-nay olsh x. Lm Ge san am (Dalmdan Kadui) pnda masa yang ma|ana¥ ad: Tan .1. pggang seczva pemegarvq amanah (mm urnnm andlorconslmclwetmsnaleh newsman -Deflendan kepana Plawmt um Delendam navamm m manaaxx -mmx menuruukkan .1... manyevahknn akaun bu.-mu x. Lm Ge Sdll am kapada mamm dun /mu oevuamcara Flamhl dahm mass :4 Han danpadaiankh psnmah MY. my Deflendzn Penama m kahundakl meugamhfl keismua lmdakzn yang berwajaran umuk mungnkwkan akaun bank mama dahm ocac Bank (Malaysm) am qocac Amnunl No. 7301255145) d-hm masa 7 nan danplda um pennlah ml an nenuan. M Delenden — nacanaan handak Iah mermngauml (Indemnny) mam .1... Lemhaga Pengauh - Pengiuh Plalmfl kesemua xawan an 1 an... SIN mK4aIDK4u2MwuaK:ImTw 2 «mm. s.n.T...u..mm.,.T.....amy...mmmw.am.n._.n_.m W dscvsmn pr me ezmer anion pr promsdmg. In us wmr sum, :1 uncorvwassus muss, and mm ohcllnn that oouldlltsfly arm ralriy huvi boon lqrally ifl[udIcltod in r». urlhr sun er pracapdmg rnrs wider aperalton or me rlacfnrva rs wmalrmlx ulorvad to eonsuucrn». res /udnrsla‘ 1: house: rns Mm canmpts olrssue eslovoe/and cause ofaclmn snapper Lrke ms #99 orwh/cl! may term the orenswas, they are assigned to ensure Ina! mere rs mramy In rmguron - 39. \n cnee Pok cnoy (supra), rne coun 0! Appeal explained mar me doctrine M res pmlcala encompass several calegones or cases. In me narraw sense‘ .1 prevents the reassempn 0! a mailer which had peen delermmsd in a nnan rudgrnenr In lhe wider sense‘ rr peesnres an abuse of spun process to rarse In a supsequenr proceeding. mailers whvch spum nave been Illlgaled in me earner pwceedmg 4a. wnemer m a narrow sense or broad sense, I and was me pnncwwe or res ruaresra mes m the present case Tne marnrrws are parrea lmm inshlulmg the mslanlsun based an the same caused acucn, same Issues and same reliefs suughl VI amnun|s In a du ' ty D1 pmceedmgs and Is an abuse 0! process 0! me spun srnrrlar cause oi acrron rssues and facts 4!. The Plarnrrus argue that res yuduzala rs nal applicable because the presem case mvohtes rmerem facts and panres ms argunrenr appears at paragraphs 5 and 5 cl merr amdavil anrrnrea by P2 an 21 112112: lEneIusure 4:!) much reads- '15} Hakwkal Mir ra ada ran an snbabkan sepanagran dokuman ying dl luruukkan can;-spa Dapynuhonan penzamrsn dokumen gunman swul PA— 22N::\/(>43-03/2021 yang rnernw-skruran srausa rrnamn barn nlhnk P\aInml— marnrrr dnlam ks: Im dl mna m rnernpsngnrsrm lerdapal lehlh panm mdwldu y.ung|er1|bn|flan habellemlasuk oz. as man D6 dmzm kes was re» Amara nya zda Iah Delendan V Delenaan Ke— 2, xs. 3 can »<.. s dalam guaman sun ml an mane uersnaan Kc - 2 dan xa . 3 rnenrpskan nr..rsnn.n.r saranr samua peransa-pan iuwem Gan hushlu mm our Izmndav lynnkal marrrrn Pemm: rm dangan manggunaksn syankm bnmm mm: syankal m yang murvggunllun rmma D; a... rm (annk -armk 02 a my senses. ‘lmnunen" 42 I arsagree. Tne applrearron 01 me broader sense of res rudicata precludes rssuas and [ads which some nave peen r-arses but were not ' ed m we Earher sun, |o he raised In me rnsram suit. The nreners eoncernrng the Invclvemem or me Famer and the Mother should nave been rarsee m me Earner sun based on me ioHL7wmg: em nrxlreluxnuzmwuaxalnrtw “ “Nair s.n.r mmhnrwm s. med s may r... pflmruuly mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum war (3) me Pnsmms aummsn ms: lhey have lhe klwwisdga mu he Fnrher and me Mother In shadow dheclms a| an maternal hma 1x|ben|den\en by ms ustsnarmsy my me P\n\n|Ms rely on ma Wlchal mnvenmiun lumbxl LLS-I‘ Enclmute 43) Lo supporl their pullluzn om me Fnlher and ma wmsr ave shadow dhuclors Howevv, me ma WeCha1 mrwersauorr wan dnled 24 n 2019. V 5 mm ms commencement :2! Ina Eamsrsun. [C] We Purmws Nflmav my an m. palne Iepon leaned Dy P2 (axmbn LLS~3 Enclosure 43; to mutual‘ their pmmnn xhal me Deiendnnls um srsmasa F2 and P3Vmm an. -drmmsnulinn MP company mwmr, Ihe sum Dohce rspen was lodged an 2911 mm, La more ms mmmem:eme1\|uHh5 Eamar sun, 4.4; The Plamms a\su myun the bank amounl srammsm ul :2 uompav1y(!xhIh\| LL92, Endosuvu :3; Yhe Pmnmnls allege mm Me an Lam aoomml slatamsm wan ablmnea lhmugh me dlsouvevy arousal VII Ihe Earhav sum Hawever. rr rs nnlzd that me bank awuunl uaxsmsnr was ohlzmed balm: ms murrsxan nlme Eamer sum. (e) As flemonslrated abovo, an we documentary amsnu wmsm ms Pmnms My on m the Inalam mm was omamed and wnmn rm xmwxeage at me marmm‘ ewlhur belare me mmmencemsnl av ms Eamer sun or wars the wnsmsmrr mus Eamsr sum A3 The F\amMs mnnerargue |haI res judicala rs nor apnlicable because |he Order or own daled 2 3202: granted by me Penang High Cam In lhe Earher Suil was due Lo the defendants m me Earner Sui\ lie. u company‘ DA arm D5) nnl oorrrplymg mm me disouvery order And that the mems u1|he case were not adwdxcated In me Earner sun. 44 Hmvever. based on me swaerree. 1 acsem me lnllawingz (at u Vs rr-urspurams our me Eamer Sun has um wncmdsd Yhe omer .21 Conn am: 2 3 2023 is Ihe rm mgmsm Much msmea av me Hams 0! me name: rn Ihe Em1>erSuI|r (I1) me Order M Cowl dated 2 3 2:22: was granted aner mung mm smes m ms Eamur Sum n I: aaressly slaled m we orasroe Cour! asrea 2 a 2923 mm’ ‘Dan Jvlalah membaca hmahan - mqihan yang .1. (aflkan am 55101:?! mandlngarhufahan—Hu1zHanp9gusm-pugusmtsoubuli 1:) Ihe Order M cowl dabad 2 3 ma ms gramea aflev we own ma mam com sues and wnsmrsa me mems aims can, my save luraneumem Mdamagsi, au Inn mhsis swam Var \n ma Eamr Sun were gmnled by me Parting High Conn we order M court can 2 3 ma srarss — 'R-ur — mm yang at when men P/amlrl mam Pcrwggan 2: sm mKqrsIDKnu2MwuaK:ImYw *2 “Nana Snr1|\nunhnrwH\I>e L... It: may r... mm-r -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max F-emyataan nmman oerlznkh 9 Mac 2:221 ad; an at bonart.-n mm msmmm kacualr garm Jug: flalam ramun M) pm 4. nkseskan men usmman -. and 1:) F mmnany ma nnnhed rm fl>ver.1mns mm respect la assessmem ov damages Dmarem games . I acknawledge that me pames m the muanc sun are duuerent (mm the (a) m we Eamavsmh ma Damn wave » m > company Ia: ma mamum and on u uumvani‘ D4 and as (a. nu dflendinlxfl us) .7. on mum sum. mere ‘s we addmnn at 4.: F2 and P3 (as me msmms) and nu the Father me Melnerami on (as lhe asvsnuanxsx and 10) an \s man man P2 and P3 are dlredovs or P company 46 That the Darlies are 7I0| quite the same huweven does nut precmde me apphcalion cl res mum. on lhis puim. I new on me Cnurl ac Appea\ case 07 Dalo’ S/vanalhan 6/V Shanmugam V Artisan Fokus Sdn EHd[2D15] 3 MLJ I22 wmch hem (ha! I Is not necessary '07 pames to be the same VI both actwons. 41 The Courl of Appeal said [at page 137;- 'I?5l In ms Pwunl SFPCSL svncu IN Waunlaciron would undoubted/y mvolve 90mg aver wuuery we same (ads as m m. prewou: HTF aml, and sampling m. bvundlrappmlnh and rm with! ms. omsmum. .s Me preierrid Ind mmmgu pashlan, me ha (ha! me pames to this sun In ammnz mun tn: HTF sun does not dlsemltle Me IPDIUIHI In mvnh MI doctrinc onssu sloppvl to bar the rsroondanl lmm Iulvlrganng a 5-ppafir: me that had basn Headed m Ina Pflol SBIJBIEIH nchon Tilt da:1rma a/so waits: to a new Dam’ fl rs lllsmlom not HOCISJIVY lo! Fwflu in D1 lhl sum: In barn acflans Wnsr m. docmns sluks to pawn! .s ... aims: of the process oi ms mm by sltemptvng m make 5 mm. Nam as we)! as almwrng the plamlm :9 rs/mgalo its cause m the xame relrei and based on the same subject mailer for wmm judgment had successfully been obta/Had m the H15 surf and :9 prom. ms same set of ram, the same w/masses and III: sama documents‘ 48. The Fkunlxffs admxlled thal at 5!! material \ime, they have knowledge av the Invch/emenl nllhe Falher, the Molherand as in the mailer (amen demed by me Defendants). Nevertheless. me Pkamms chose to weave lhe Father‘ ms Mother and D6 out no the Earher sun I consider that the P\aAnWs are esmpped «mm now clraggmg me Father, the Molher and us sm mxlwumuzmwuaxzlmtw ‘3 «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! into me lnslanl sull Te eeek ler srrnrlar rellels wnicn P eenrpany nae successlully ublalrled in me Earner sun. 49. ll Is my poncluslpn lnal lne Plarnlme have larled la brlrlg lprward lnerr whale eaee. Ineleed lney Dmughl pan pl 0181? case ln lne Earller sun And naw allernpl lo anng lne rest of men case ln the lnslanl sun, when lhe same should have been deall wn me Earlier suil The Plalnulls cannul sue by mslalrnenle. I find lnal lne Plalnulls are precluded lrern rellllgallng in me lnslanlsml, oernplarnls which should have been bmugmlorward In me EavherSui\ slnrilar relrels 5D The prayer ler loss pl prom was pleaded In lnlh lne Eamer Suil and in the lnelanl sun The Plalrllllfs allege lnal lne clarrn lor loss ol prom m the Earller sun was conlrned la me loss at profit in the months pl January and Febmary 2020 wnlle xne clalm lor loss or pmfll in me rnelenl eulr ls afier me nuslile lake — aver pl P company by me Delendanls 51 ms appears at paregrapn la owls Plam|ll1s‘aIfldavllalllrrrled by r=2 an 21.3 2023 lsnclesure 43; 'Bet1<anaan lass :71 pram. runluren Plalnlll Panama dalarn puarnan mu FA- zzucvc-osmrzazl hanya berdasaman keunlunqarl uua bulan Uilmnli den naruan znzol pede xellxe enml alm blirm mernnr Pnllzmn snhajl manakala rumuren guenren swll lru ada ran bevdasalkan Ian M prerlr rernpon panlarrq selepes neenle and luvcelul |ak5ovurInws(7u| “ 52. The allegalran Ihal me elelnl ler lpes pl prom ln me Earner sun war. only llrnrled Io lne nronlns pl January and Fsbmary zuzo Is rnlsleadlng laeeauee In me affidavlt In supppn (Enclosure 51 Penlexerran Garrll Rugi Am’) alfirmsd by F2 ln lne Earlrer suil lar direcllons wnn respect to assesemenl nldamsgesl F cornpany ls cla ing luss er prerrller 10 years In the sum er RM2|.6 rnrlllon ln lhe Earlier sun 53 Thls appears n are lellernng paragraphs 0! the aleresara affitiavll rn supnon: lay Pangraprl :3 pure see aflldnvll {ll suwml ‘Seklmnya neleneen I uerendan lrdak msnysbabkarl hosllle Iakeoven semesllr-lye pemlagaan reueran mislh deper fll lnlarlkan dalam keadaan pemlegaarl yang oegnu unggul dun mean dnpal nrelu ke ranap yang lehm tmgql sekuvang -kurlng Imluk rnese lo renun- srn nrxlleluwduzmwuawelnrtw " “Nana s.n.r nurlharwlll re HIGH m may he nflnlnallly mm: dnuurlarrl VII .nuua war tn) Parzuranh an ullhe sam amaavn WI suppon wsrnpon ‘W lamm ada Van 12n bulan nnnnsh nys dl man: kzunmngnn bemh yang .n. ma w1en.noa an sebulzm bmehdx mm umuk Denwrann kehllingzm keumungnn . Rmwnao on X120 = RM21,5(X).0l)D.l)l)‘ (c) In pariguph 42A who said amosw: -n suppen. ms msnnm; am daumng for “a) Gsntrwyl kemlinyin prom pmnmyaan floss cf busvness prom; RM2T,600.0GI7 Do‘ 54 Funher, the Mamnffs are clammng the fenowmg In lherr assessrnem of damages under the Earlier Suit Dewflnlxnn Amount mm Gnmlrugl kalvgmn uos_.snovssr_ _ «.1 59 519 19 earn-rum xemuanoan wane lunax wane dawn bank 739.007 59 s anka| ennuruur kemwan nmana pa elekmk xenumlgak w9.ws.1 1 Gamumgn keh|Lmg.nn pram pemiagnan 2: aaoma no Truss M lmsmes! p-mm sun-nag: keuedsvun rupuusw psnnsgun soanna (ms av business Tavmalmn)_ _ 55. I wvll not perm |he Fhlmlwfis to make a double clawm on the same subject matter Tn lwo separate suits. There musl be finalwy m Imgamn The De(endan\s cannol be vexed twice tor the same cause ov acnoh Ju al Esmggel 56. The Pkuntwfs are snernpcing to take a different pusifion in me insnam sun, Trorn that wmch they (oak W the Earhev sum Such cannot be parnnuea The pnnoapls cl judicial eslappel prevems a party from assemng a posmon m one mun. and me oppesue In anamer courl The mean o4 me pnncrme V510 protect me Inlegnty o! Jumclal process. 57 The com o1 Appeal m Leisure Farm Carp Sdn Bhd v Kabushrkr Karsha Nyu (ronneny known as our-«cm Shaker) a Ors [2017] 5 MLJ 53 at 74 - 75 held‘ ‘(my /1 :: clearlomrsmun Ihatme ohlictofludlcralostoabells mwwcnl . pm who nssumes . plrllcullr position In Wvnlon to can In rnonnsmnnrposmon In lakrmliarvon The aonmns panama: sstppp-1 npprm ap s party Mm has successfully and urlnqmvucully uuunad n pasvban In E 1:00! pmmsdmg, be u eslopped fmm sm mxa-Iumuzmwuaxzlmtw *5 «wn. Snr1I\nanhnrw\HI>e med n my r... nrW\n|H|Y mm. dnuamnl VI mum Wm! essenmg an mcansmenl pnamorr m a nlbssqunnl nmcaedtng Judmal usrpppe/, mmm rsrntsndsdlopvaladma mgmyameyuamerpmnss The essenosl nmmon or jumcul mapper is lo pnmn: Anluntrorvll mmnaneency, In: ub[n1u(ln-mlerstopmtedmejumaa/y‘ aun rnsltmtron‘ from [M perversion oijudrctnry machmsry ./mlrcrar esmupal addresses me mcungmrly pv allowing a pany xp aaean a posmon In on: mbunal and ma oppostla in number lnbunal. /I ma second moune/ amazes the party‘: mmnsulenl ppsupn, men at ram one cum! has pvooamy bssn mam: ' sa. smnzeny m Peguam Negala Malaysra y Nurul /zzah by Anwar 5 Ors [2017] 4 MLJ 556 6| 574. the Conn 07 Appea\ held: ‘[21]Vnanyev9nI,mfaw‘!haI1ov:tnrIu p/name; estoopelwrllnrwapplyloap-sfly wnare me sax! pany, mo aupellant vn this appeal, had mam/my and unaqwpcany pavsundad ma own an or assanea, a pusmon m ma Se/angal Govcmmant case so that men mal new man pm», me me/Aan: womd be Ostuppid lrom ussnnlnu an Inconsrslunl pasilion In . subuquom pmcnalng warm m (N: appear is me app/matron for ,uama/ ruvraw rne asavnrlal mneoon ouudtcral eszpppem m urevsnl /ntsnlronaltrmcnxrsruncy while me omecl pl me mo u m pmm (ha spun mm In: pcrvslsvon av/udlaal macmmry ./umaal esloopsl seeks lo aaomu mo irlcnnymiw alzllowlnn . pnnycuasam. pashlnn In um voufllndllraoppnsltl In nnollaei Mburm". 59 In me Eamer sun. the Plamzms had adopted the s|anee lhat u was D company, DA and D5 wne were Invowed In me name Oaks - ever oi P company we appears at me loflowwng paragvaphs at me affidavi in suppon afflrmed by P2 and mad by F company in the Earlier sun. ta) Paviguph a mme ma emaavn Wu suvpoll ~sepan.mena yang dw saeuuan d\ 315:, nevenaan I nevenaan ielah manyebabkan rmunnm - am Dermagaan vesloran ‘Arman Duwnidx mana ueoanaen - D-findnn menmunakan sumbsv 5511:: ad; lymkal P\aIrmY untuk menjamnkan pemwagaan vasloran \armuuk denqan name mmun yang aeme Man Man: eemue keumungan maemman kepada syinkn|Delem1an K9 7 2 dan /alau nu.n.1....uevenaen secara kolekm' my Pavagraph 13 ov me said ammn in support navenaen 7 Damon» hukan sanap murvnumh n p-mm-an vestovan Flamhl mam?! dana — pane dam ape! sylnkzl P\am|\l me an man can G1 amhH am: nlefv nacanaan. navena... Imluk keaunaan meveka' my Faliqraph 2o anna sand aflidavh In suppon ‘Dzkndnn V Delendan -new msnanggung kemamn Iersebm Kenna syankal PVAIHM nanya manguam. kemsmn V kemsakan den kumglan (ersecm aklbat cemvun «mam aleh Delendan I umnaan seems Vangsulvr am mkqatuwauzmwuawalmtw '6 “Nana Snr1|\nmhnrw\HI>e U... m my me nVW‘nlWY mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-NM so It was ptaaoeo tn the Eartrar sort that D4 and D5 were the mat" otrtpnts behtnd the hostrte take — over at P oompany Thts appears at paragraph 22 of the statement ot claim In the Eamer sot: whton read . 'Juqa hatdasarkan kenyataan . kanyaliart or am, marrrm jug: marwnlnknn panawa that knrpnml Dulandln xaooa nenoatttah dl |emhust (Mina the oarparata vttl) aahawa netarmn Ketrga secngat pengamh oar. pemegang saharn dnlam Delevman Kedua hendaklah trenanoaunarawaa seoara sanotnan xevaaa Ptatnnr atas sehab oetenoan V netenaan tetah oanrnoan some konsmrzsl pan r atan senate trpuan den r atan secaraItdakli-Mur(utihuttu1)¢un I alau becara mata roe dart r am sacala rnernoamo natanoan tzenanta menyebabkan batlakunya ksjadtan - kqadtan can I atau kmmlngi Denfltwa alpem yang tatah or nynlilun oatant pmnggan. petenggln t s 21 at mas’ 61 In the rnstant smt however, the Plamltfls have taken another posttton The Platnltfls now auege that it was me Father am: the Mother who are the masterrmno ufthe hosttte lake — over 0! P oompany This appears at paragraph 6 at the Platntttts‘ ialfldavtl amrmeo by F2 on 21 a 2023 (Enctosure 43): “Amara nya sdz tah Delendan V ueteman Ke V 2 K3 » 3 oan Kc » s oatarn auarnan amt ml or rnana nmnnan K. 2 can K mlruplkan mulumt mi oatarn aemua perancangan toroetat oan hoot. takn nv1r|amndiD ayan at Flitnltl Forum; tt>1t dnngan martggtmnknn syxnkati hnham tflllu syankat nt yang menggurtalmn narna D4 din no Aar\.ak- annk D2 5 na sehagat ‘lvohtmeh')‘ 62. tt rs ptam that the Pla ntrrts have taken an rnconarstent poslllon. on the one hand (VII the Eartrer suit), the Ptamtrtts otatmeo that rt was D company, D4 and D5 who are the rnasterm o behmd the hosltle take » overuf P company's restaurant business on the other hand trn the rnstant SIM), the Platntttts are now atteging that the Father ano the Mother are the maslermtnd behmd the very same hosttte take - over ot P ctJmpzny's restaurant bttsmess as Havmg pveviuusly adapted the postlton tha was D company, DA and D5 who were those who toroetutty look over F oompany, I oonstder that the Ptatntttts are estopped trorn now ta ‘ g a contrary stand by auegrng ti was the Father and the Mother who are the rnasterrntno in the sam hostile taxe - war at P company. Cgnclustgn 64 For the reasons above, I allowed the Devenoants‘ s|rtk 9 out appltcatron vtds Enclosure 41. I struck out the Ptatntms' ctairn aga st the srn mxlt-tuxnuzmwtraxalmtw '7 «war. s.n.t luvthnrwm a. .r.... a may r... atwtruflly ann. dnuavtml VI artuNa v-mat Devencenns. I ordered me Plairmffs Io pay casts a! RM5.DOD to me Defendants Daled 5 December 2023 Quay cnew Soon Judge High court at Makaya, Penang \ Dlwsinn NCVC 1 Cuumgig Jnhn mm and Marlm Km (Menu Vsmiu, Khan .: Anoaatesflovme mmm. Chew Xm vw {Messrs D09 5 Man-mmmm Ihe Delendenls sm mK1;eJDKduZMWuaK2ImYw 18 “Nana sew nmhnrwm e. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-ms! keruqlan bemanakll rcomequsruar uamaslu) dl ma danpida ram. penamalarl am! psnanllarl penyswaan Flalnlllr (vl) Gaml mgl un|uk kehllnngan "ma balk dun repulasl Plalrlfll seeanyak lwlz annmo 110' The slanl sun 11 AI paragraph 4 or their aflldavil alfirmea by F2 on 2l.a.2uza (Enclosure 43), the Plalnllfis admnled mat the Earlier sum ls almur ma hosllle lake - over ol P comnany The Psalm s lunher admllled lha! me Business Sale Agreement was declded upon m ore Earlrer sun Which held mal lrre Business sale Agreemenl was nan - exlslenl. or pedlaps mere accuralely, null and Vela, as prayad (or m me Earller sun 12 Pamgraph 4 onhe aloresald amdavll reads ‘Guzman mu FA—2ZNCVC~45-03/2021 hanya rslmr. umuk mum bahawa m, D4 dan D5 aaalan usual dun bsrsilah dalim mung-Imhll r. bllnln Pl-' - Pnnxmn ucnn mar. flan D-Ilunnn ar mans Dellanilan lualbell vemagaan yang msamxarm nleh DI, m «an as nlnh dlpntuskln ndnkuulura“ 13. Al suhsefluerll paragraphs el lhe same amdavn, Ihe Plalnllffs also aarmllea met me lrlslarll sull Is abnul lhe hosllle lake - over ol P company Namely: 4.; Parigmph s arm. lends “Amara r-ya aaa Ian Delendarl—De1em1an Ke V 2‘ K8 — 3 can Ka — 5 aalam wuaman slvll ml dl marl: Dalandan K9 7 2 dan Ks » : msrvvakan maslsrmmu dalam sarm psrnrvcangarl iureelul can huh Ixk -avlv lsmsaav iyankal Plamtfl Faflzm: (PH dsngin menggunakarl sy.In|m| mam ll rm lyivlkm D1 yang menggunikan nama D4dirl Dfl(.nmsk— anak oz 5. as selmgni vmmmen‘)’ lm Fzrfigravh 27 whlch reads -Am latapl, GI babkarl an kolusl Dslsndan - Delsndan yang menysbsbkun Imhll — uih mum F1 dam lw Derlgumsirl blsne! ynng lldak memunlkan linpllnn llu membawa kepnda penulupnn hlsnes vexlnumn F1 am menmggnlkan nnma yang husuk dnlam naselan F a. E" to) Purayravh 2: whlch reads ‘Auk ant iyarlka1P1 lugatelahdlbololdnndl lelnngkzn men .2 xk kellga aklbal darlpafla rmm. mu - owl blsnes P1 ole?! mm Dalundarl ~ Deleudin‘ am mxlr-luxnuzmwuaxalmtw 3 «me Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. HIGH a may he mm-r -mm: dnuavlml VI nFluNfl v-mal 14. In lhe lrrscanl sun. me Plamims allege that me Father and the Mother are shadow directors‘ who are me mastermind in planning and executing the hostile lake - over ol P company 15. This allegallorr appears al oaragraph 14 or me mainline’ aflldavll amrmed by P2 an 21 a 2023 lerrclosura 43) which reads 'Da|am kiln Mm Delendan Kn . 2 dan Kn - 1 Ida lav. pulnlnh . pang: h hnynnann (shldnw dlrmar-i yang marunam muklmlnd dalam melanaarlg dari malaksanakzvv luvvelul dzm meme LIKE V averlemaidap smial P1dan9an msrlggunakarl nama- nnma arlak meleka Ial|u nslsrrdarr - um-rider» K5 7 4 sehlngga Ka . 5 dl mans em. 7 will «emerge ieleh rnemulau >2 / P3 dinpad: aerma pemadhlrarl lelmasuk msrlgauh samwrg umuk menghalnu P2‘ 16. Also at paragraph 5 of me Plalntllls‘ aflidavll amrrriad by F2 on was 2023 (Enclosure 45; which reads ‘Dnhmhn KI . 2 dari K: :l in: mi muxtumlind yarla membuai pelarr din herkolusi derrgarr uelerrdan - Dxfsndnn yang lam unluk memwunakan nama ariax rlya url|uk mangumbll aim nemlngaan lesloran syarlkal Merrill veriama melalur 5yan|u| Dalendzn Panama - I7 ll IS srgmncarrl |o nn|s lhel lhe Plarrrlilis plaim lo have knowledge lrrai lhe Father and the Melher are me shadow direclors oi F cumpany at all material lime (which is denied by me Delerrdariis) This appears al paragraph 3 or mail affidavil alfirmed by P2 on 15.92023 (Enclosure 46) which reads. ‘Plalrlm I Plalntifl sumsmang nyn s an an. monullahul Vakla bahawa uelendarr Ka- 2 dar. «e .3 mempakan shadow dlledor syarlkzl Phlrllfl ylfln unlll rrr mlurhl kelana Dmemarl Ke - 2 selalu memo-enqeruslkan mesyunlm Lemhaga perlgarah den masyuaul pemrrrg syarrui Halrlllfdl maria Deierlflarl Ke — s juga akarl rvlarlghadln umuk mengamhll reknd rrresy-rarel- The similar claims 18. The Delendarrls produced the lolldwing table in show lhe elrmlarilies beiween the elelemerrl 01 claim in the Ezriler Suit, when camperad with the Statement cl claim In lhe lnslanl suil No me semr smi_ l The lrlslam rum 1 >2 lsa repulable mm and surved P2 .. . «arm. cruel and served as r as head anal M F company‘: me lace‘ MP oumnarly s mslaularll reslauvam i 4 sm mKllaIDKdLlZMwuaK2ImYw “Nana s.r.i mmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm r... mm.u.y mm: dnuuvlnnl VII nFluNG puns! n4 neo mused P2 to be remnvsd «om P company an 317 map. No! Iona tnereaner, P3 was abs: mmuvld by m non. F mmvzmy [pnmgrnvhs 1 and a ct me sLuteme<\|ol::l.a\mI on 31 7 2:119, P2 was nnnmo ham P company ny D4. Subulluanlly =3 wu mac removed nom F compnny lharauvaphs 15 to ca ct tn. stetonrom at ctatml Do emerco mm tne aoetneee Sale Agmemem Mm a company wttnoot P company‘: apmuvah consent, emnonty or company mscmnon [plmguph 2 or tne etotemem M clmml The petenoents we D4 toamnerwnn us estentrsneo :2 company to take uvev tne no-tnm ct P wmplny wlmout conrentncm P2 and F3 on: company‘: mctonon [paragraph 2a or me Statement ot ctetml ‘ eoneete son EM tune Iandbutd). m uusod tn. con, tcrmrnencn at me tenancy agreement helween P company eno Kaunas‘ rnereaner m cameo e new tenancy agreemem to be enlered rmo balween tne xenotom end at company Iperapropns to and n of me s4a1amIm L71 atom.) 94 aimed rne cony tenntnenon :11 me renenoy awveemem belwean F company and Kemu sen-qua Itne tanmcra) ua ormpateo tne assets M 9‘ company |paIigvzph we 0! tn. Statement or cmm} DI company llalliad P ccmpany 5 ocst: Bank awounl to be masked and mlsflsrsd wtlh tne huunl uverahnns at P company lpenaarzpn t2 cnne statement at dawn] P company: cacao Bank nccmtm wax mmned and mocked ooe to cououon armng the oetenoents. tperaprapn zvtxnn ct tn. steumem ct Claim] , , 74 19. me Detenoante pornt out tnet the noettte take - over 0! P company‘ as euegea by the Plainltfls In the statement or ctetm meo VII the instant sun, relers to me same events wntcn F company neo ccrnptetneo at In tne Earlier suit 20. In pamnular. tne FWHIMS‘ auegaticn concermng the lullowmg 5 sm mK1tnIDKnu2MNuaK.ImYw «no. Snr1I\navthnrwH\I>e med c mm o. nflmnuflly MINI ooc.n.n. VI munc Wm! La) me emmisnmem cl u wmpany as a uemcue to undenaka the malls Ink: .mmu> wmpany: restaurant busmess (navagmph zuvm; 0! III: Smanenl M cum m me man: my an m. .s.......m. M Ihe x-15593 oi P wmvany and mnssvnruunsuan 0! the b..=.m. nl me Plswmms. tpnmgraph 241\><)m|hs smmm MC m Ihe mam um), ms 1:» me mnmx ul P2 1nd :3 «mm me managemennovw mmunny (paragraphs 15 m an and paragraph 244»-) mm Slilemeulal Clam m In msum my 21 The Defendants say lhal the crux 01 both the Eamev SLIi| and the Ins'anI Su 5 on the same issue, . e wnneming the aHeged has a lake e over of F mmpany. The swnuar re g1; 22 The Deiendams a\so produced Ihe vcnowmg came to show me smwannes between the vehefs sought m me Eanier sun, when compared wmh me rehels prayed for m the instant sun. ’ n. Eamersnm and me Oldev utcmm dated 2 3 2023 Na nu mm | 1 Sutlupqnnuh hnhawa Dmendan Dslsndan - Delendnn hendak VIII . Deiendan umuk mnmbayar muninggungmquflnflamrmy}Plamm am 359599 11 kapaua P\amM- dan Lembaaa Penglmh-F-ngamh , Phalnllv Flamnl xewm klmglan dnnlalau kenman barblngkfl 1v:mI5r9querma\ aamauasx m hm aanpaaa mum‘ panimalsn nwm pa-mun DenvewaanPIa1mn Tarmasuk kerugun yang ai nhflkan isczva xpumk m nerenggan wavy Fumyauan Yunlulanir m Kemguan amaun RM5n4,5m on ‘ ham ween» want and Hquvpmenl‘ my Ksruglan amaun R»m,ass.nn ‘ bag: ‘mvenInnes— raw mananavsx dan » Kemglan pandapahn ammm wM5a2,oe:« as 2 Sum: éenman bahawa semua ueklam? bahaw: kesemua pendapaljn / grufll berkenaan pem1apalan(Im3gme)n\ehX\LmGe em mm..:umuzMmm:mm ‘ «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! duvgln mum n...m« mam. Srfln mm (Delenflan Kedua) nan. vans dllenmz man Deiendxn ~ mm Yang maleflal admah Delendan an bayar mm mm; mpenenisecampernegangamanaru PVHIHM Panama denaan seqeva (mm on mm and / a conslmntm nusn 0|-h Dnfunuan - Ddeniin knpada Phmm lemmyuk amuzaea 35 yang a. pfidkan near: spesnfik m Derenguan «sun Pemyaxaan Tunlman J Sul|upIrInlih bahawi n.1.m.. Defendnn . mm... ai kehemm .n-mm." umukmeng.Iknunk.m menuruukkan den mznyerahkan semua mg ~ my yang ai akauan bevaudR)(ILmGn sansm lemma name. xx Lm Ge San ‘ kepadz Plamm flan / alau‘ and um dan Flamm s-enammpeguameara Plavmldalam mmm mum on nw cm Klat unnaan 1 Han dannada mum Pumuh m. ‘ cm: Jmn W97‘ um ilau apa-1 Iva mm bclknnasn o Kmusakan am Gum rugl (mu dwulsmun) mm havu u mrbcu for auwnumw wan /alau v-um awe dwechuns mm resoeu Io mu alau 393- spa amiun yang m assessment cl damages angglv aeaum dun mnmnal nlen Mahkamah mmia mu wnemn Ihe Plamlms am «or. at Garmruuv kermar-nan mpulasl mm Durmaslaazn Has: an rm...“ vnmn m2u,ma.uan no xemguan unmk Kemsakan P wmvany mama far ‘garmmgl gum1MI\danmpu|a0unRM51ula unluk kumlangan nami bank .1... Man ava - up: man» my ravllhu wummm sebnnyak ma-«way um. dun mmaan m2‘ann.nmna‘ ‘ meh Mnhkimahmulmnnv The vnamuns have rm 3 when «or dlmchoni w-m mined In um-mm L11 damages Whumn me Pmmms clam: Vor— e» Gnnhmgx kecederaan mpunam nemmeaan (loss ov rmmass mpmamm Rmsamuou on 23 The Defendants puimouunevauaw g‘ (at al Daraavavhs may no swma smamennovcxm mme mxLan|suH. me P\:In\Wk Ira chnmxng (or am 359.9091: which campuses oi:— m sm mm-Iuxnuzmamaxalmtw 7 “Nair sm-w nmhnrwm .. HIQG w my .. mm-y um. flnuamnl VI mum W RMl.2oo,uuu D0 in Iespeclclilxlures and flltlngs. and nil l2inme,9oe.n Ill vasp cr el kemglfln ms 7 kas (ail mar, my in me zanler sun. me Plzlmm had claimed lor— nl RM504‘510M rer prepeny. planiand equipment, on nMr,lss,5ls.1orcrrenuuanen cesi; and min RMWEBDV ll ler lass sulrered lor unlslzndlrlg balance ler elecvluly bin, (cl Du Plnlnllfls‘ claim luv nm,asa.aa9 ll in inc rnsrarn sult in ralvhct al nxiures and rrnrnga am ma aulsinmflng ma mllliy bill wue else claimed In rne sanrarsun (6) in me aaner Sun ine mainline nad acugrn and wns allowed by mu order at Cmm dared 23202:‘ a duclarairon mar all me Inoome made by n company is held onInls1¢avF mrnpany by D company‘ D4 and D5 24. As such. me Detendanls suhmll inaune principal reliefs in me rnslarri sun have been raised. prayed for and granted VI me Eamer SLAM. 25 Prernised on me above‘ me Detendanie ooniend lnai res yudioaie and esloppel is applicable In ihe present case. And that there is rnulllp cI|y bl proceedings Tire Plainmle are seeking a ‘second bne al ihe cherry‘, sa in Speak. Accordingly, me insiani sun ougrn to be einick oui as being lnvolous or vexallous and an abuse 01 |he preeess bl ddun. Decision 26 me law penalnlng Io striking out Ma panya pleadlng under order la rule 19 or me Rules cl Courl 2012 is well seiiled ii is only in a plain and obvlous 1253 me! recourse should be had In ihe eurnrnary process under inis rule This summary procedure can only be edepred wnen n can he clearly seen that a claim is on me leoe el ii oeyrdualy unsustainable ll cannoi be exercised by a rnrnuie exarnineuen M the docurnenis and facts dl the case, in order in see whelner me pany nas a cause of eciion. (see me Supreme coun case cl sender Bui/der sun and A ors v Urmed Malayan Banking corparalion BI-ld[1993] 3 MLJ as, [1993] 4 cu 7; [1993] 2 AMR 1969). 27 The men must be sa sfled inal were is no reasonable cause bl acliorl orrnanne claim is lnvalous clrvexallaus. The coun is nor concerned a| ihls slage with me rnenie oline claim se long as me pleadings disclose some cause or aalon nr r-alee some que ns M in be decided by me judge, me rnere lam met me case IS weak and nut llkely lo succeed aube inal n. no ground lenne pleadings lo be slmck om srn mK1laIDKduZMWulK2ImYw 5 «wee a.n.r mmhnrwm be mad e my r... bflmrrnflly MVMI dbuuvlnrrl Vfl .nuna vmul 23 In Raja zarrralAlm1rn hm me Hey Tacmk & 3 ors v Brmsn-Amerlcarr Lrie A. General Insurance larrulleeal 3 cu sue at 512, me supreme courl remarked me: are lower ocun should have scrullnlzed me evlderlce In order lo declde wrrelrrer lrre acllorl was bound lo lzll The supreme ceurl Sald lnel an acuon can he surnrrrarrly dlsposed ll mere Is an absence cl mnlllct at ma|erlal evldenoe or ol wnfllci M allldavlls on material puirrls So mar seemmgly rrlaule or urmeull reeuer. could be rsadlly aecrded lrr such a way as \o lead to me ooncluslon lrral me aclmn was bound lo larl 29 In a sun lrwolvlrrg complex queslions or law bulwheve me essenllal lecls are run ln mspule, me complexlly oi the quesllnns cl law should not he a reason ler reluslng rellel urrrler Order 18 rule 19 al |he Rules olcoun 2012. If sahsfied mar lhe quesllons of law are lmarguabls, me oaurl rs rm prevented lrorrr grarrllrrg summary rallel merely because ‘me question of law Is at flrsl blush 0! some cumplexlry and lrrerelere |akes a lrme longer lo undersland' [See the Ccurl of Appeal case of Krrarry Jamaluddm V Data‘ 591/ Arrwar bln Ibrahlm [2013] 4 MLJ 173 al 132) an. Applylng mess legal prlnclples, rl ls my llrralrrg mar me rrrslarrl s s lrlvoluus and vexalinus, and an abuse of H13 preeeee ol mun l corlslder me l=lalmnls' acllcm againslllle oelerrdanlsle be nhvmusly unsustainable And is bound lo larl ll ll was II.) proceed to lnal Hence, lms ls a plaln and cbvlous case lur slriklrlg cul. 31. The reason ls because we lrlslarll sull ls barred by res Judlcala and esloppel Here V3 my explarlahorl. lkummu 32. As demorrslralea earller, bolrr the Earlier s and me inslam sull revolved around me same lssue Namely, whether mere was a Ilusllle lake 7 over of me reslauranl buslness el P eempeny by the nelenaanls 33 The rellels suugm In mam me Earlier Sull and lhe lnslam eurl are also lhe same Namely, lo run back me Plairrlills in|cl lhe posmon as n lhe alleged hosllle lake - over 04 F company an rlul nawerr 34 The prlrlclple ol res judlcata was enunclaled by me supreme courl in /lsla Cammerclal Finance (M) arm V Kewel Tellu Sdrl and [1995] 3 MLJ 139 al 197 as lulluws ‘When a mam! nermerr rwo pm-as has om uuruuraelea by a court ur eomrlwenl/unwrcrran. um um; and Hrelrpflvles are no! llrmmedto llrlgare m mKlleIDKnl.l2MmuaK:lmYw 9 «mu. Smnl nuvlhnrwm .. UIQG e may r... uflmnnllly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl muua Wm! one. man me res1..r:rc.e1e Decausa me magmem becomes [he arm nerween such names, or in mm! words, me yarns: snow accapt r: as me mm, res ;m1n:ala pm velrlalo acaprmr rne numrcnahoy Mm Iawls mm, M: in me flubhc mlerasl Mal men mm./.1 be «ramp in Illlyulon -mlolusl rs! publmae ru 5!! Wm: Mrum n rs onlywsi me: no em menu to ba vuxld mm for me sum: em- or seven ' 35. Swmply put, when a subject manner has been many denuded m a own 07 cumpelem pmsd\c1\on, |he penies and their prmes are not pemmlsd to relmgme me same mansr once more Otherwise mere wm be nu and to Ivllgallon and me hindmg eflecl ollhe cums eemsuon would be V05! 36. in As/a Commerclm Flnancs (supm). the Supreme Court further new mat res judxcava is not eormnea to Issues wmch me mun .s aclually asked he deems am K also covers issues nr (acts wmch ave cueeny pan cnne subjec| mener allhe migemn, and coma have been re.sea m me prsvxous proceeding. 37 The supreme cam sand (at page zoo) w rs mrmr nezzssary at we 5159010 unausverru me rmpofl or me warns in me sard iumau: statement, rs em, paint wmen pmpmy bolonqnd to me Jubfinl e1 mlgallorv 'wmcn semerveu Ll explamsd m Gluanhalgh V Ma/lard 1194712411 E}? 255.1,: 257 as reams . rvnudr: :. rmmspurpase /5 notconflnud to me Issues which me court I: Ictullly esnea to aura.‘ nut ncavnrs Issues sums which in so clinriy nm :1! me Iubjod mm-r olme lmgatvovv srra so study could new been rersm ma! u wauld be an zbusv om. procus m‘ an com in lflow . new pmecndiny m M am-tedm mspsntollln-m‘ as. Vn cnee Pck Chay & ors v Scotch Leasing Sdn End [2001] A MLJ 346‘ the Court of Apnea! expkamed lhe doc1rme B7 rssmmcala i ' nalmw and broad sense by cmng the Enghsh case ev Henderson V Henderson (1543) 57 ER 313 The Courl e« Apnea! said (at page 357;- wnere e grvan mener becomes me subpci ol Mrgatron m, and of adjudrcalrun ey, 1: mm uimmoelvnljunsdrdmn me mm reqmrss me pen:-s to meumgsmm m bllng forward Ilroir whnh em and MN not [axaopl under wscull cm:ums1sr-mes) perrr-n my same pemes la upon me same sulysc! or Imgnhon rr. respeuarrnmer which might me Men nreugm Iurwm es pan orme sub/K1 in ¢antI:L em wmcn was me: areugm lurwufl, only because may havu, [mm negugenae, rnadwrlcrvca nraverv eemeru, wmtrad pen at me» me Thu dadrms may thus be uun Io nnmmnass aeverzlcalogonu In its narmwest sense, res /udrcala, I lmnk, refers to sslnppw by racwu n revere In Me aclua! em mxqetuwauzmwuawzlmtw W «we. ssrm nmhnrwm s. LAIQ4 m my r... nflmnnflly em. dnuumnl VII mum WM

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22IP-64-10/2021

PLAINTIF 1. ) Sika AG 2. ) Sika Technology AG 3. ) Sika Kimia Sdn. Bhd. DEFENDAN Nippon Paint (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

Claims for damages and other relief for:(i) infringement of Trademark (ii) passing off;(iii) copyright infringement; and(iv) unlawful interference with trade.Claim dismissed.

17/01/2024

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dfb32afd-efdf-47ee-9ec1-ba6b54d7a2a2&Inline=true

17/01/2024 10:11:43 WA-22IP-64-10/2021 Kand. 136 S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-87-580-03/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa RayaORANG KENA SAMANMFCX CAPITAL SDN BHD

(i) Kesalahan mengendalikan perniagaan gudang tanpa lesen dari pihak Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinaang yang bertentangan dengan UUK 3 Undang-Undang Kecil Tred, Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991.(iii) Permohonan penangguhan perlaksanaan hukuman ditolak kerana tiada keadaan istimewa yang dibuktikan untuk membolehkan mahkamah menggunapakai budibicaranya

17/01/2024

Tuan Mohamad Azlan bin Basri

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2bfdfbc8-a3c4-4ebc-b316-e82d23b14988&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET TRAFIK, SAMAN JABATAN DAN JENAYAH 2 GEORGETOWN DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG NO. KES: PA-87-580-03/2022 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN MFCX CAPITAL SDN BHD (1406019-W) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pertuduhan [1] OKS dalam kes ini telah dituduh di bawah Undang-undang Kecil 3, Undang-undang Kecil Tred, Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang dengan pertuduhan sebagaimana yang berikut; “Bahawa kamu MFCX CAPITAL SDN BHD [NO. SYARIKAT :1406019-W] dipertuduhkan bahawa kamu pada 22.11.2021 telah mengendalikan perniagaan di 23-D, Jalan Air Itam, 11500 Pulau Pinang tanpa lesen diberikan terlebih dahulu oleh Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan iaitu Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang bersalahan dengan UUK 3 di bawah Undang- Undang Kecil Tred, Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991 dan dengan ini kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang mana boleh dihukum di bawah UUK 28 di bawah Undang-Undang Kecil Tred, 17/01/2024 07:00:37 PA-87-580-03/2022 Kand. 35 S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991 yang sama.” [2] Kesalahan di bawah Undang-Undang Kecil 3 adalah boleh dihukum di bawah Undang-Undang Kecil 28 yang memperuntukkan hukuman sebagaimana berikut; “Seseorang yang melanggar mana-mana peruntukan undang-undang kecil ini adalah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh, apabila disabitkan, dikenakan denda tidak lebih daripada dua ribu ringgit atau penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih daripada satu tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali dan denda tambahan tidak lebih daripada dua ratus ringgit bagi tiap-tiap hari kesalahan itu berterusan selepas disabitkan.” Kes Pendakwaan [3] Pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan keterangan dan ekshibit melalui 3 orang saksi pendakwaan sebagaimana yang berikut; i. SP1: Ramlee bin Hassan (Pembantu Penguatkuasa Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang) ii. SP2: Wan Nurul Mardhari Bt Wan Umar (Penolong Pegawai Kesihatan Persekitaran Majlis) iii. SP3: Bawani a/p Murugasan (Pegawai Kesihatan Persekitaran Majlis) [4] Berdasarkan keterangan yang dibawakan melalui SP1, SP2 dan SP3, kronologi kes adalah sebagaimana yang berikut; S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal i. Pada 22.11.2021 jam lebih kurang 11.30 pagi, pihak Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang (MBPP) telah menerima aduan berkenaan penyimpan stor keranda di premis beralamat 23-D, Jalan Air Itam, 11500 Pulau Pinang. Satu lawatan telah dibuat pada jam lebih kurang 2.30 petang ke lokasi premis berkenaan oleh SP1 dan SP2 bersama pegawai atasan mereka Encik Sundran A/L Govindasamy. ii. SP1 telah menghubungi pemilik premis iaitu Encik Enddy Lim En Ting untuk membuat siasatan di premis berkenaan. Encik Enddy Lim En Ting telah membuka premis berkenaan untuk siasatan pihak MBPP. iii. Siasatan di dalam premis mendapati terdapat lebih kurang 20 buah keranda disimpan di dalam premis tersebut. SP1 kemudiannya telah mengambil gambar di dalam premis tersebut dan kemudiannya menyerahkan Notis Untuk Mengambil Tindakan Penguatkuasaan bertarikh 22.11.2021 kepada Encik Enddy Lim En Ting. iv. Siasatan lanjut SP2 mendapati bahawa terdapat satu permohonan lesen komposit telah dipohon melalui laman sesawang MBPP iaitu eLesen oleh pemohon bernama Enddy Lim En Ting bagi perniagaan MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd (OKS) yang dinyatakan sebagai sebuah perniagaan perkhidmatan pengebumian. Permohonan oleh OKS telah diproses dan dibentangkan namun telah ditolak oleh pihak MBPP. v. SP3 mengesahkan bahawa satu surat makluman keputusan mesyuarat juga telah dikeluarkan kepada OKS pada 3.12.2021 S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal memaklumkan bahawa permohonan tidak dapat dipertimbangkan kerana premis berada di luar lokasi yang dibenarkan dan bukan dalam senarai yang didaftarkan bagi aktiviti penjualan keranda di dalam Garis Panduan Perletakan Kolumbarium, Krematorium, Funeral Parlour Pembuatan dan Penjualan Keranda di Kawasan Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang. [5] Dalam membuktikan pertuduhan, pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan intipati pertuduhan sebagaimana yang berikut; i. OKS mengendalikan perniagaan di premis beralamat 23-D Jalan Air Itam, 11500 Pulau Pinang. ii. Perniagaan dikendalikan oleh OKS adalah tanpa lesen dari Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan iaitu Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang [6] Pihak pendakwaan sepanjang kes pendakwaan telah membuktikan bahawa OKS adalah pihak yang mengendalikan perniagaan di premis beralamat 23-D, Jalan Air Itam, 11500 Pulau Pinang. Dapatan ini adalah berdasarkan keterangan oleh SP1 dan SP2 yang saling menyokong yang menyatakan bahawa premis dalam keadaan berkunci dan hanya dapat dibuka setelah kehadiran Encik Enddy Lim En Ting iaitu pemilik perniagaan MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd. Fakta ini juga tidak dipertikaikan oleh pihak pembelaan sepanjang kes pendakwaan. [7] Siasatan lanjut didalam premis pula mendapati bahawa terdapat lebih kurang 20 buah keranda disimpan di dalam premis. Perkara ini disokong oleh Ekshibit P2A-E yang menunjukkan gambar premis dan gambar keranda-keranda yang disimpan dalam premis tersebut. Fakta penemuan S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal keranda-keranda di dalam premis ini juga tidak dipertikaikan oleh pihak pembelaan. [8] Pihak Pendakwaan juga melalui Ekshibit P6 iaitu Rekod Permohonan eLesen Sistem Pengurusan Maklumat Lesen Majlis telah membuktikan bahawa Encik Enddy Lim En Ting sebagai pemohon bagi pihak MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd telah membuat permohonan untuk mendapatkan Lesen Komposit Tred Perniagaan dan Perindustrian untuk suatu perniagaan membuat keranda di alamat 23-D Jalan Air Itam, 11500 Pulau Pinang. [9] Pihak pembelaan walaubagaimanapun telah membangkitkan isu bahawa OKS tidak “mengendalikan perniagaan” sebagaimana pertuduhan sebaliknya hanya menyimpan keranda di premis tersebut dan ianya dikatakan bukanlah suatu kesalahan. Dalam meneliti perkara ini, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa UUK 3 di dalam Undang-Undang Kecil Tred, Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991 telah menyatakan bahawa; “3. Tidak seorangpun boleh menjalankan atau memulakan apa-apa bentuk tred, perniagaan atau perindustrian seperti yang ditetapkan dalam Jadual Pertama dan Kedua masing-masingnya di mana-mana tempat atau premis dalam Kawasan Majlis tanpa lesen yang dikeluarkan untuk tujuan itu.” [10] Sekiranya diteliti definisi ‘industri’ sepertimana di bawah Undang- Undang Kecil Tred, Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991 pula telah menyatakan sepertimana berikut:- “2. Dalam undang-undang kecil ini, melainkan jika kandungan ayatnya menghendaki makna yang lain- S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ‘industri’ ertinya apa-apa perniagaan, tred, pengusahaan, pengilangan atau pekerjaan majikan dan termasuk apa-apa pekerjaan, perkhidmatan, penggajian, pertukangan tangan atau pekerjaan perindustrian atau vokasion pekerja dan termasuk perusahaan di rumah dan kilang-kilang seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual Kedua;” [11] Manakala didalam Jadual Kedua di dalam Undang-Undang Kecil Tred, Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991, salah satu aktiviti yang dijadualkan yang memerlukan lesen daripada pihak MBPP adalah Gudang. [12] Maka, adalah jelas bahawa aktiviti penyimpanan dalam sesebuah premis yang dijadikan gudang adalah suatu perniagaan yang memerlukan lesen daripada pihak MBPP. Oleh itu tindakan OKS menyimpan lebih kurang 20 keranda di dalam premis tersebut sebagai stor penyimpanan juga adalah tertakluk kepada perniagaan dalam bentuk gudang yang memerlukan lesen daripada pihak MBPP. [13] Pihak pembelaan telah membangkitkan isu berkenaan ketiadaan papan iklan, buku rekod perniagaan dan pekerja MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd di tempat kejadian. Mahkamah ini mengambil pendirian bahawa kewujudan dokumen-dokumen tersebut boleh menyokong kes pendakwaan, namun ketiadaan dokumen-dokumen tersebut tidaklah pula menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. Hal ini kerana, tindakan OKS menyimpan puluhan buah keranda di dalam premis itu sendiri telah cukup untuk membuktikan bahawa premis tersebut telah dijadikan gudang atau stor penyimpanan keranda. [14] Bentuk “perniagaan” itu sendiri perlu diberikan tafsiran yang meluas sebagaimana dalam Jadual Kedua Undang-Undang Kecil Tred, S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991 yang turut menggariskan gudang sebagai salah satu bentuk perniagaan yang memerlukan lesen daripada pihak MBPP. [15] Intipati kedua pertuduhan iaitu perniagaan dikendalikan oleh OKS adalah tanpa lesen dari Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan iaitu Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang juga telah dibuktikan melalui keterangan SP3. SP3 telah ekshibit P6 telah menjelaskan bahawa pihak OKS telah mengemukakan permohonan lesen untuk menjalankan perniagaan perkhidmatan pengebumian di premis tersebut. SP3 juga telah menjelaskan bahawa permohonan tersebut telah ditolak oleh pihak MBPP dan satu surat makluman bertarikh 1.12.2021 (Ekshibit P8) telah dikeluarkan kepada pihak MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd pada 3.12.2021. [16] Berdasarkan keterangan ini, Mahkamah membuat kesimpulan bahawa OKS telah menjalankan aktiviti penyimpanan keranda di premis tersebut pada tarikh 22.11.2021 walaupun permohonan lesen masih dalam pertimbangan dan tidak diluluskan lagi oleh pihak MBPP. Makna kata, OKS telah mengendalikan perniagaan dengan menyimpan keranda di premis tersebut tanpa memperoleh sebarang lesen daripada pihak MBPP. [17] Mahkamah juga mengambil kira bahawa kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan terhadap OKS adalah suatu kesalahan berbentuk strict liability yang mana Mens Rea atau niat adalah tidak perlu untuk dibuktikan. Mahkamah ini merujuk penghakiman di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v Osman bin Apo Hamid & Anor [1976] 1 LNS 110 yang mana kesalahan strict liability diberikan sudut pandang berikut; “In my view the offence is one of strict liability in which the mental element is negative by the legislature. I have no doubt that the legislature intended that the category of physical acts of this nature must itself constitute an offence if only because the alternative would mean that the apprehension offences of S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal this nature would be well high difficult if not possible. The creation of absolute offence is not new. Indeed Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132 which I shall refer to takes cognizance of this fact. Lord Reid at p. 148 says: ‘Our first duty is to consider the words of the Act; if they show a clear intention to create an absolute offence, that is the end of the matter’. The problem faced by the legislature if in all cases mens rea is required can be quite frustrating as Lord Reid says at p. 150: The choice would be much more difficult if there were no other way open than either mens rea in the case where an absolute offence; for there are many kinds of case where putting on the prosecutor the full burden of proving mens rea creates great difficulties and may lead to many unjust acquittals." And Lord Morris at p. 152 in the same vein had this to say on the requirement of mens rea: But as Parliament is supreme it is open to Parliament to legislate in such a way that an offence maybe created of which someone may be found guilty though mens rea is lacking. There may be cases in which as Channell J said in i Pearks, Gunston & Tee Ltd v. Ward [1902] 2 KB 1, 11: '...the Legislature has thought it so important to prevent the particular act from being committed that it absolutely forbids it to be done; and if it is done the offender is liable to a penalty whether he had any mens rea or not, and whether or not he intended to commit a breach of the law.' "Thus in diverse situations and circumstances and for any one of a variety of reasons Parliament may see fit to create offences and make people responsible before Criminal Courts although there is an absence of mens rea." S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Lord Pearce has given us some of the requisites to look for in offences of strict liability. He said at p. 156: But the nature of the crime, the punishment, the absence of social obloquy, the particular mischief and the field of activity in which it occurs, and the wording of the particular section and its context, may show that Parliament intended that the act should be prevented by punishment regardless of intent or knowledge." [18] Mahkamah ini juga merujuk kepada kes Lim Chin Aik v. R [1962] 1 LNS 86; [1963] 1 MLJ 50 yang menjelaskan sebagaimana berikut; "Where the subject-matter of a statute is the regulation for the public welfare of a particular activity- statutes regulating the sales of food and drink are to be found among the earliest examples- it can be and frequently has been inferred that the legislature intended that such activities should be carried out under conditions of strict liability. The presumption is that the statute or statutory instrument can be effectively enforced only if those in charge of the relevant activities are made responsible for seeing that they are complied with. When such a presumption is to be inferred, it places the ordinary presumption of mens rea. It is pertinent also to inquire whether putting the defendant under strict liability will assist in the enforcement of the regulations." [19] Berdasarkan kes di atas adalah jelas bahawa kesalahan strict liability sebagaimana yang dipertuduhkan terhadap OKS tidak memerlukan pembuktian dari segi Mens Rea memandangkan peruntukan tersebut adalah untuk mengawal selia kebajikan awam dan kesejahteraan perniagaan dan industri dalam kawasan Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang. S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Penilaian Mahkamah di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [20] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini adalah terikat dengan duluan kehakiman yang telah menetapkan panduan yang perlu dituruti dalam penilaian kes di akhir kes pendakwaan. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes Magendran Mohan v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 805 dalam yang mana telah dinyatakan; “The test at the end of the prosecution's case is "prima facie case" based on a maximum evaluation of evidence. The evidence has to be scrutinized properly and not perfunctorily, cursorily or superficially. If the evaluation of the evidence results in doubts in the prosecution's case, then a prima facie case has not been made out. The defence ought not to be called merely to clear or clarify such doubts.” [21] Manakala di dalam kes Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan bahawa; "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 adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal.” [22] Akhir sekali di dalam kes PP v. Mohd. Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memberikan panduan berikut dalam penentuan kes di akhir kes pendakwaan; “ (i) the close of the prosecution's case, subject to the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinised the credibility of each of the prosecution's witnesses. Take into account at reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused. S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (ii) ask yourself the question; if I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that evidence is "Yes" then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is "No" then, (iii) prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted. (iv) after the defence is called, the accused elects to remain silent, then convict. (v) after defence is called, the accused elects to give evidence, then to through the steps set out in Mat v. PP [1963] 1 LNS 82; [1963] MLJ 263” [23] Setelah meneliti kesemua keterangan saksi dan ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan di peringkat pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini setelah membuat penilaian maksima mendapati bahawa pendakwaan telah membuktikan suatu kes prima facie ke atas OKS. Oleh itu, OKS telah diperintahkan untuk membela diri. OKS telah diberikan tiga pilihan iaitu untuk memberikan keterangan secara bersumpah, keterangan secara tidak bersumpah dan akhir sekali untuk berdiam diri. OKS di dalam kes ini telah memilih untuk memberikan keterangan secara bersumpah. Kes Pembelaan [24] OKS setelah dipanggil untuk membela diri telah mengambil pendirian untuk memberikan keterangan secara bersumpah dari kandang saksi dan sedia untuk disoal balas oleh pihak pendakwaan. Pada peringkat ini, pihak pembelaan diberikan ruang dan peluang untuk membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes prima facie yang sebelumnya telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [25] Encik Enddy Lim En Ting (SD1) adalah satu-satunya saksi bagi pihak pembelaan dan telah menyatakan keterangan sebagaimana berikut; i. SD1 adalah pengarah MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd yang menjalankan perniagaan perkhidmataan pengebumiaan. SD1 memberikan keterangan bagi pihak OKS. ii. OKS telah menyewa premis 23-D Jalan Air Itam, 11500 Pulau Pinang untuk menjalankan perniagaan. OKS telah membuat permohonan lesen dari pihak MBPP namun telah ditolak, lalu OKS tidak menjalankan apa-apa perniagaan di premis tersebut. iii. OKS menyatakan tidak menjalankan apa-apa perniagaan di premis tersebut kerana tiada papan nama perniagaan dipaparkan, premis sentiasa bertutup, tiada pekerja bekerja disitu, tiada pelanggan, tiada rekod perniagaan atau bukti transaksi yang menunjukkan aktiviti perniagaan berjalan disitu. iv. OKS telah membayar sewa bulanan namun tiada apa-apa keuntungan atau pendapatan diperoleh daripada premis tersebut kerana tiada perniagaan dijalankan. [26] OKS juga telah diperiksa balas oleh pihak pendakwaan dan keterangan adalah sebagaimana berikut; i. SD1 setuju hadir sebagai pemilik MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd. ii. SD1 setuju telah hadir ke premis tersebut dan membuka pintu premis tersebut yang dalam keadaan berkunci pada 22.11.2021 setelah dihubungi pegawai MBPP. iii. SD1 setuju keranda-keranda berada dalam premis tersebut sebagaimana ekshibit P2A-E. S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal iv. SD1 setuju keranda-keranda tersebut adalah milik syarikat MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd. v. SD1 setuju tiada sebarang tindakan diambil oleh pihaknya setelah MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd menerima notis P4. vi. SD1 setuju permohonan lesen olehnya sedang diproses dan bukannya diluluskan. vii. SD1 setuju telah menerima surat makluman P8 yang menyatakan permohonan lesen telah ditolak. viii. SD1 setuju bahawa walaupun permohonan masih dalam proses, namun aktiviti penyimpanan keranda telah dijalankan di premis tersebut. ix. SD1 setuju tiada lesen dikeluarkan kepadanya atau kepada MFCX Capital Sdn Bhd untuk menjalankan aktiviti menyimpan keranda di premis tersebut. [27] Dalam membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan, pembelaan telah membangkitkan isu bahawa pertuduhan terhadap OKS adalah cacat kerana tidak menyatakan apa jenis perniagaan yang dikendalikan oleh OKS didalam pertuduhan tersebut. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah berpendirian bahawa tidaklah menjadi suatu kewajipan untuk butiran jenis perniagaan dimasukkan ke dalam rangka pertuduhan memandangkan UUK 3 sendiri hanya menyatakan secara umum bahawa tiada seorangpun boleh menjalankan atau mengendalikan apa-apa bentuk tred, perniagaan atau perindustrian tanpa lesen. [28] Malahan, Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa pihak OKS tidak terkeliru mahupun diprejudiskan oleh pertuduhan yang dirangka oleh pihak pendakwaan. OKS didapati tahu dan faham pertuduhan terhadapnya dan OKS telah meletakkan pembelaan sewajarnya dengan menyatakan S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal bahawa tiada perniagaan dikendalikan di premis tersebut. Oleh itu, adalah jelas OKS telah menerima notis sewajarnya melalui pertuduhan yang membolehkan OKS hadir dengan pembelaan sedemikian. [29] OKS juga membangkitkan bahawa tiada bukti perniagaan dikendalikan OKS di premis tersebut. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa isu yang dibangkitkan ini adalah penafian semata-mata oleh pihak OKS tanpa bersandar kepada sebarang pembuktian di Mahkamah. SD1 sendiri telah mengakui dalam keterangannya bahawa telah menyewa premis tersebut dan telah menyimpan keranda-keranda di dalam premis tersebut. Walaupun tiada sebarang papan tanda, tiada pelanggan, tiada pekerja, tiada rekod transaksi di premis berkenaan, namun ia tidak dapat menyangkal bahawa premis berkenaan telah digunakan untuk menyimpan keranda dan secara langsung boleh disimpulkan telah dijadikan sebuah gudang penyimpanan keranda. Malahan, semasa sesi soal balas oleh pihak pendakwaan SD1 sendiri telah bersetuju bahawa aktiviti penyimpanan keranda telah pun dijalankan walaupun kelulusan masih belum diperoleh dari pihak MBPP. Penilaian Mahkamah Di Akhir Kes Pembelaan [30] Di akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah perlu menilai sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan munasabah atau adakah pihak pembelaan telah berjaya membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes PP v. Chia Leong Foo [2004] 4 CLJ 649; [2000] 6 MLJ 705 yang mana telah dinyatakan; S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “Thus where the prosecution has made out a prima facie case and the accused, in his defence, offers an explanation, the burden of proof to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt is still on the prosecution and if, upon review of the evidence on both sides, there is a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.” [31] Setelah meneliti keterangan saksi pembelaan, mempertimbangkan hujahan pihak-pihak serta menilai keseluruhan kes pendakwaan dan pembelaan secara maksima, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak OKS telah gagal membangkitkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan. Oleh itu OKS didapati bersalah sebagaimana pertuduhan di dalam kes ini. Hujahan Mitigasi Peguambela dan Faktor Pemberatan Pendakwaan [32] Pihak pembelaan dalam hujahan mitigasi telah berhujah bahawa wakil OKS iaitu Encik Enddy Lim En Ting berusia 30 tahun, merupakan seorang peniaga dan menanggung seorang anak dan isteri. Pembelaan juga memohon hukuman denda yang ringan. [33] Pihak pendakwaan pula telah memohon satu hukuman yang setimpal sebagai pengajaran kepada OKS. Hukuman [34] Mahkamah ini setelah mempertimbangkan hujahan mitigasi, hujahan pemberatan dan keterangan kes secara total telah mensabitkan OKS dengan kesalahan dan menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM2,000.00 S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dan denda tambahan RM50 sehari bagi setiap hari kesalahan jika kesalahan berterusan selepas sabitan ini. [35] Hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah selaras dengan UUK 28 dibawah Undang-Undang Kecil Tred, Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991 yang menetapkan sebagaimana berikut; ‘Seseorang yang melanggar mana-mana peruntukan undang-undang kecil ini adalah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh, apabila disabitkan, dikenakan denda tidak lebih daripada dua ribu ringgit atau penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih daripada satu tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali dan denda tambahan tidak lebih daripada dua ratus ringgit bagi tiap- tiap hari kesalahan itu berterusan selepas disabitkan.’ [36] Mahkamah ini juga dalam menjatuhkan hukuman telah mengambil kira bahawa hukuman ini adalah penting sebagai pengajaran kepada OKS dan teladan kepada masyarakat supaya tidak mengulangi perkara yang sama. Hukuman ini juga telah mempertimbangkan faktor kepentingan awam yang mana seliaan pihak MBPP menerusi Undang- Undang Kecil Tred, Perniagaan & Perindustrian Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang 1991 adalah penting untuk memastikan kesejahteraan dalam sektor perniagaan dan perindustrian di dalam negeri Pulau Pinang. Akhir sekali, hukuman ini juga adalah untuk memastikan OKS insaf dan tidak meneruskan kesalahan tersebut setelah sabitan dibuat. [37] Tuntasnya, Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang dijatuhkan kepada OKS adalah setimpal dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan. S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Permohonan Penangguhan Perlaksanaan Hukuman [38] Pihak OKS telah memohon agar satu penangguhan perlaksanaan hukuman dibenarkan atas alasan bahawa pertuduhan tidak menyatakan secara khusus apa jenis perniagaan yang dijalankan oleh OKS. Pihak pembelaan juga menyatakan bahawa terdapat saksi pendakwaan yang mengesahkan premis tersebut tidak dibuka untuk menjalankan perniagaan. Akhir sekali, alasan yang dikemukakan adalah kes akan dirayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi. [39] Permohonan ini telah dibantah oleh pihak pendakwaan atas alasan segala keterangan dan hujahan telah dipertimbangkan sewajarnya. [40] Setelah mempertimbangkan permohonan dan hujahan pihak-pihak, Mahkamah ini walaubagaimanapun telah menolak permohonan penangguhan perlaksanaan hukuman atas alasan berikut; i. Dalam menggunakan budibicara Mahkamah untuk menangguhkan perlaksanaan hukuman, duluan kehakiman mengikat adalah jelas bahawa perlu wujud keadaan khas sebelum penangguhan boleh dibenarkan. ii. Mahkamah mengambil panduan sebagaimana digariskan dalam kes Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. Public Prosecutors and Another Applicant [2004] 1 CLJ 592 dan mendapati bahawa tiada keadaan khas yang berpihak kepada OKS untuk membolehkan hukuman ditangguhkan. iii. Rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi juga bukanlah satu alasan yang secara automatik membolehkan penangguhan dibenarkan sebagaimana diperuntukkan Seksyen 311 Kanun Tatacara S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Jenayah. Malahan, OKS juga tidak membuktikan wujudnya prospek bahawa rayuannya akan berjaya. Bertarikh 16 Januari 2023 Disediakan Oleh, (MOHAMAD AZLAN BIN BASRI) MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET TRAFIK, SAMAN JABATAN DAN JENAYAH (2) GEORGETOWN PULAU PINANG Keputusan pada 23.11.2023 Pegawai Pendakwa: Mohammad Noor Helmi bin Jamain, Unit Undang-Undang, Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang Peguambela OKS: Cheah Eng Soon Tetuan Azam-Malek & Soh S/N yPv9K8SjvE6zFugtI7FJiA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

KB-A53KJ-41-02/2020

PLAINTIF AHMADARDY BIN KUNAK DEFENDAN NORMAN BIN JUSOHPIHAK KETIGA1. ) MUHAMAD AL AMIN BIN OTHMAN 2. ) HUSNA MILAH BINTI ABDUL WAHAB

Amendment. O.20 r.5 ROC 2012Test under Yamaha Motor and Hong Leong FinanceTo amend special damages. Specifically pleaded and strict prove.

17/01/2024

Tuan Roslan Bin Hamid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=87080b1d-267a-47a2-b53c-114838eb04b7&Inline=true

KB-A53KJ-41-02-2020 (Amend).pdf 17/01/2024 10:27:02 KB-A53KJ-41-02/2020 Kand. 65 S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N HQsIh3omoke1PBFIOOsEtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Ra—A53KJ—41—u2/2u2n Kand. 55 Inn:/22:4 ,2-“ :; DALAM MAHKAMAH SESVEN DI SUNGAI PEYANI DALAM NEGERI KEDAH DARUL AMAN WRIT SAMAN No KB-A53KJ-41-nz/2020 ANTARA AHMADARDY aw KUNAK [No KP 33021571359011 pmnms DAN NORMAN BIN JUSOH [NO KP ’ 73041103-551 3] . DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Fengaualau [1 1 \m ada\ah permohonan p\amM an kandungan 45 G1 bawah Amran zu Kaedah 5 11) Kae\1ah—Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 unluk kebenaran memlnda pemyavaan Iunlulan henankh 29 m 21:20 [ 2 1 Deva! pmuaan yang mcadangkan tersebul Ie\ah dilampvkan da\am anaavu sokongan kepada me Bemasarkan dera! «ersebun, pwamw memahon umuk mermnda mmnnuur ganlvrugx khas. Lalarhelakzng Kes [ 3 1 m: adalah Iumulan plairml akxbal kemalangan jalanraya yang herlaku pads mm zme yang mellbalkan molos\ka\ FHG 471 yang w sw Hasxnhmx Parmosaw -ms Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm dmmggang oleh plalnm dan mulukar mu 4515 yang dipandu o\eh delendan [4 1 Kenas kausa yang lelah mvailkan aaaxah sepem Denkul. I wm dan pemya|aan mnuman pads m 02 2020, Fembe\aan delendan pads 20.05.2020, Pembe\aan pmak kellga pada 23.02.2021‘ w. Nous pevmohonan plndaan dan amdavn sokongan pada 24.07 2023‘ dan v. Vkalan dokumen Iambahan plamm Ke-5 pada 25 07 2023 tmengandungx Vapnrarl dam mm Tech Pmsmenc a. Ormoncs benanklw 24 05 2023) Undang-Undang Meliflblla ndaan [ 5 1 Aluran 20 kasdah 5 (1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 memperunmkkan sepeni benkut "Aturan 20 Pmdaan 5 Pmdaan kepada Wm Man phtflng dengan kebgnaran (A20 k 5) (1)Tenal<\u|<kepadaArman15,kaedah6,6A,7dan8danlJemnmkanvar\E beukut daVam kaedih W, Mahkamah wen wade mane-mane Permgkal pmsmmg mgmbenarkan Wamul memmda wnmya am. mana—mana puhak memmda Dhdmgrwa, ates ava~aDa terms Ienlzng kos ztau selamnva sebagzwrnana yang advl dan mengwkm sauna Cara , sekwanva aua, semgamm yang ““""k""‘va “ [6] Walaupun permuhonan pmdaan um boleh dibuat pada mana—mana Denngkal prosnumg, wanya ndak memadikan permohonan lersebul boleh N Na hm‘ Parmosaw mm Sum M... M“ be 05.. .2 mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm [ 15] Selelah meneh permnhonan mu , pjga anaavu — afidavll Sena hujahan Den yang d menaapau plndaan . pmdaan yang mponon m pin 10 , men. 6dan1B kan o\eh keduadua pmak , Mahkamah vu oagu ganlvmgx khas ada\ah human lerperlnci can spesmk bagl ganwugl yang berkenaan Te\ah ada buhran (erssbut dalam |Im(utan aaax |stap| hdak mpnukan secara spas: k Pmdaan dnpohnn herdasarkan sanmnarga beflankh 24 us 2023 Adalah undangmndang yang man|ap bahawa pwhak-plhak aaalan tenkat dengan phdmg yang u lkan. Alas dmuat sebab nulan Dermohonanl [15 1 Menquk kepada kes Samuel Naik Sfang Ting v. Public Bank and 12015]: CLJ 944; Mankaman Persekuluan menyauakan 1251:: :5 a cardmal rule m cm! llngaxian that pamex are bound hy their Neadirws and m not avowed to addurtlr-1:15 and isxurx whith may have nofplmdedjxee State Governmentolhmk V Mumandy 1195511 ms 117, (195511 MU 49:1, I1ndAm1ar Mar Arum V Abdu//ah Mom: Zmn /191191 1 ms 74,-1195913 ML! 313). rn alav v Po!/nrd 3. Moms (19301 1 KS 5211, Srrunon u mad that "(uses nm: be decnied an the rssuex an the record, and :1 it is desrmd :1: misc other Issues man must be pleaded an the record by umzndmenk. [so] The 5uprEme Eaurt n. lee Ah Char V Southern Bank ana 11991; 1 (L1 557, (199111 CL/(ReI1)239,[1991]1 ML/I115, mm a/su en-vphaxrsed the Importance olxfleudirvyx and ruled mm where a wta! fsxue was nu: mixed m me ulendfrvqx ,1 mu/d not be nllawzd m b: mm and m suczezrl an appeal gm N Husmannu-»oa1PaF\DasEIw ma Sum Mn... wm be 15.4 m mm 1.. mwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm also Amb-Ink (M) arm V Luwmm Kamfl Mohammad Don (20121: cu 551, [1011]/ML/U 55 re; lsxlon the same rsxue, HRH Ram A1/an Shah H In; HRH men was) m rm: Emmerud Bunk V. vm Chan 119741 1 ms 175; 119741 1 ML’ 157, mm also pointed out that "as me ma! judge had derided an an me which was not mriedm me D/eadmqs, the/udqmemmusrbe sems/de and new rluzlankred" {See L7/5o'HL1]I Mahamed Dom v. Sakrmarv [1955] 1 ms 26; 119551 Mu 45, and Kmwmk Hang En ua V Tan Tran my/19531 1 ms 59, /1954: ML! 991/ [17] Begun pjga, da\am kes OngAh Long y Dr. 5 Underwood [1931] 2 CLJ 193, Mahkamah menyafakan bahawa "rt 1; well extol:/Ixmzd pnnupre um sperial damages, have to be spedfimlly Dlzadzd and xpecifiwrly prom. . mg reason that many damages have to he spermlly pleaded .5 m comply mm 1:: alyerx mm rs m rryxmlhzg the me and :0 enable gum name; :9 1212121112/nl Ural". [15 1 Oleh kerana pmdaan yang mpor-on ada\ah bagi ganwugi khas ‘ sudah semeslmya plaium p-nu momplidkannya sncara spesifik Bukan nu sahaja. pmmu juga pcrlu membukllknnnya socara kom. Eanlahan pmak ddenflan bahawa permohonan W dlbual unluk menambahkan Jumlah mmman unluk memperkayakan p\amuf ada\ah max bulzh dwlerima meh mahkamah Apa yang dwplwdkan meslilah dwbukukan me\a\u\ kelerangan dw mahkamah [ we 1 Mahkamah jugs msnuapau pmdaan yang mpohan ada\ah bone ms kerana wanya dwfaulkan bemasarken sebutharga berlankh x2 N Na hm‘ Parmosaw mm Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm 24 05 mm seperllmana yang dlsehul m a|as Plndaan |erse|:m( wga hanyalah memperinc an Iun|u|an bag! \Iem—i|em |ersebu| lanya |e\ah mpnukan secara am di para 6 dan we pemyalaan mmman asal. lanya juga Iidak Ikill memprojudiskan delundan kerana p\amM maam panu mammmukan ana yang mpnaxan [20] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Raphael Pura vlnsas and 5 Arm! 1200014 cu no, Hawdar JCA, menyatakan v -' ms mun slmflavw had Larmdered 0.201 Sm Tmxhu Co Sdn and V Pan Globalfaumes and 1199911 Cu 7E1 mid; wn Tmsha '5 2335,1712 amendments re\ale to the amendment cf the statement of claim a. mat as .2 my. me quesnons nosed m Vamaha would sml be euuafly appmame Io (he present apnea: befare us. IHI1: awn: on av the avvellanl, on the (ins heiur: the lumen judge, showed lack ofnana fldathen he falls in his application almgemer VI .5 (hen for the appellanl askmg (he mun m exercise a mmauanary Duwev m ms favour Io mace some maxanax and advance some cogent reasons to men the murtta wean on ms me {see MuVtr'—Puk Singapore Pte. Ltd. rm recerversmfll v rmmmuu E: 01;. [1992] 2 suz 793, [1993] 2 sue 1 13) “ [ 21 1 Mahkamah Juga memuluskan hahawa Iiadz kelewalan dalam memhuat pemamanan V7! Wa\aupun pegawai pznywasat Ie\ah membenkan keterangan da\am kes yang lerdahum wan)/R nanya atas Isu nammi, ans yang hendak dlpmda sekarang ml adalah bag: garmrugl khas. Mahkamah ml saxan lag: merujuk kspada Kepulusan Mahkaman N HDsm3nmnMs1PBF\DDsEIw ma Sum M... wm be used m mm a. am.“-V mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm Persekutuan dalam kes Hang Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam M39 5 Ann! Apnea: (21215) 8 cu 1. Yang men‘/atakan “ lulu: ws Berunenl in note that‘/amaha Matorwas decided undev me am an: 1930. The CM‘ procedure has me man changed mm me Inlrudumun er the pmnan :35: management m the year zooo under 0 34 al the pm 1930 (w el 22 Senlember zoom and new urmero 34 0! the ac zmz (w e 1 1 August mm uowadavszne mun rewgnisesesvuially under me nzw case nunagunenx regime was a diflevenl uuwnacn nuds tn bu liken m prevenl delay In mg progress at a case Io mal and Inn ns rnmnlat on. The raroxress cl me case is no lonxer led! in the hands of the litigants nu: with We wurl in the dvivefs seat. (See the case 01$}/Ed Omar Syed Mohamed V Perbadanan Nrmonal Ehd (242121 9 cu 557) " [22] Eerdasavkan keadaan-keadaan sepsnimana m alas, Mahkamah lnl memuluskan bnhawa plndaan yang dlpohon hukanlah sualu penyalahgunaan prose: mahkamah. lanya adalah bona nae, lanya udzk menukar dan menguhzll sivac alau kzvaklertindzkan um dan juga pka dihenzrkzn lidzk akan mgnyehahkzn kandakzdilan dan nreiudis kenada defendan yang Iidak boleh dipamnaskan dengan kos. KEPUTUSAN [23] Oleh nu, permohonan plamm di Kzndungan 45 un|uk kebenaran meminda Pemyalaan tunlutan adalah mbenavkan Kos dnanggung oxen pmak plamm N N »am.nmx Parmusaw mm Sum M... M“ be used m VMW m. .m.m mm; “Mun M mum Wm Benankh pada11 Januari 2024 ROSLAN BIN HAMID HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESVEN SUNGAI PETAM KEDAH DARUL AMAN Tankh Kepulusan . 07.11 2023 Tankh Rayuan 17 11 2u23 Peguam Plamui T/n Jega Kumar 3. Parlners (fiutlelwcnh) Peguam Delendan T/n Shari & Sn tfiullerworlh) 15 sw »u;ma.mawar1oo;m M; W; s..1.1.m.m11;. used m mm 1.. DVVWHMVIY mm; nnmmnnl VII mum VWLI1 dwbenarkan secara aulnmauk sehagaw sualu hak pemnhun Mahkamah masm mempunyal bammcaua samada unluk membenarkan ahau menulak permohonan sedennkuan [ 7 1 Prmsxp Undang-Undang msngenax pmdaan ls\ah banyak mpmuskan nleh Mahkamah an Malays: Dalam kes vunana Mam! Ca Ltd V vamana (M) Sdn Bhd (1953) cu (Rep) 423‘ Mahkamah Pevsekutuan menyatakan sepem benkur "Under o 10 Mlhe mes M me Hugh Cmm19)30,wh::h\s eannaxenuo o 22 Rules of sumeme couvt, a Judge has a msueuan Io auaw leave in amend pfleadmgs me any ulher msuenan, n -nus: ar course be exercised .au.;.any [see KamHay Tmdmg V Kam Fan Tm MmeI1953]1 ms 51 We generax unncmxe \5 was me cam wm auaw such amendment: as wfll cause no umuslme to me other vimes wee basic quesnans shomd be considered to determine whether umusnce wmflfl or would nut resuh, up wnesner me avnlizatinn isbom1fid£:[2] whether preiumze caused to the ulnar side can be compensated by cases and (3) whelhu me amendments would run in eneax mm me sull lmm one anamser lnkn 1 ml! lmm one characlel mm a suit av another and inconsistent character." [ s 1 Terhaham, Mahkamah Persekuluan da\am kes Hung Leang Financo Bhd v Low Thiam Ho. 5 Anorappcal (2015) 8 cu 1, Zumn. Ahmad Makmumn CJM, menyalakan sepem benkul -1331 Havmg considered me has and the circumstances aune present case, our views are as (allows N Husmannu-»oa1PaF\DasEIw nae Sam M... wm ae used m mm ae mwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl vn muua Wm (3)Whendeahngwwthanapplwcatluntaamendthe p\eadmgS,wh\:h\ntrDdu:e a new case m me claim 07 defence, on me we ul me man, me prmuples m mmana Mam are run me sole mnsmemmns (b) the unncmles m vumamz Motorzpphes Io cases where me zvnhczuon to amend we wezdmzs 13 made at an ezvlv stzxe ouhe umceemngs (c)ThaI mete haste bea cogentand vezsonzme exwananon m me apnluanrs amuam as m my me appnmmn was filed me (:4) Tha| the apphtatmn to amend the pueaamgs .3 not a mum manoeuvre (ey That the Proposed amenumem must dlsdose mu pan-mars for me (nun Kn ascenam m were I: a reax praspec: of suctess m pnwmgme same m The! me-ess m the apphcauan la amend the Weeding; cannot necessarlw he comnenmea bv ha‘/ment of costs." Mujahan Dlguam plllntlllpemohon [9] Peguam plalnlwlberhulah hahawa 1 Permuhonan dwbual secara bone fide berdasarkan keadaan mamntsekerang: 2. lanya bukamah taclvcal maneuver. lanya bemasarkan buliran Vengkap Vaporan pemenksaan semma pakar Orlosxs herlankh 24.05 2023 (K 47)‘ 3 Plalnlfl akan dlpreludiskan jlka permuhunan m. Ildak dwbenarkan, dan 4.PIairm1 penu memp\idI<an secava spesmk ganwugi khas dan membukukannya. N Na 3nmnks1PBF\D0iEIw we Sum M... M“ be used m mm we ms.“-V mm; .1.sM.m.. mum pm Hujallan peguam delendan [ 1o] Feguam delendan pula berhujah bahawa v 1. Fermohonan um mnum secara malahde den Ianya ada\ah tactical maneuver‘ 2. Terdapal kelewaxan da\em menfaulkan permohanan mu, clan 3. Permuhnnan um pkg dlbenarkan adalah mempreyudiskan defendan yang udak bo\eh dupampas dengan kos Dapalan Mahkaman [<1 1 Dalam memperllmbangkan permuhonan VH Mahkamah W perlu memuluskan «enemn dahulu persualan — persoalan benku| 1. Samada permohonan W dlbualsecava bone Me‘ 2. Samada Ierdapat kelidakadflan alau Dreludis kepada wennan yang boleh mpampasxan dangan Km; 3 Samacla pmdaan akan mengubah s|fa| atau karakler Imdakan \m,dan A Samadapermohonanwmdl anlewat [ 12 1 Apakan pmdaan yang mpchon 7. Mahkamah menuuk Kspada plndaan yang mponon oleh plamm melalun ma. Pnndaampmdaan |erse|:mI mpenumnxan a. sun. aaaxan seper1IberIku| sw HOilh3nrwnMs1FBF\DOiEIw ‘ -ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm aurnmaurm KLRUGIAN xx-ms PLAINTIP I) Lapomn Po|Is,RaJ:|hK:sard.1n (iambar RM 45,00 cmn m RM 20 no 3) K95 Lapman l’:rubaIan dan Hnsvlml Sulun Abdul llallm RM w on 4; Kn: Laporan Pakar vsmm Dr Jeyamyalu RM man on 5) K05 Laporan rm; Onupedlk RM 500 no m—mam ammkamasa ox Kos Lamar: Pnkar dan sehm Halgg unmk Pmsxhcsm .24 onnmsu RM 2 son an %—mm d«-mahkamalw 3 Kerosakxm pmm. RM 15 on Q Kerosakxn kasnu RM 150 an 9 Kehxlzmgan lopl keltdar RM 150 on M K4» Ptrrhdunjxmn vmm... 4; an am. um.j..k Hospital Sulmn Abdul Hahm m Mmhkamnh m Kos Penalanan Kcluarga kc Hospital mm mm Hnhm ....u.k mclxswnl Plmmf lama 5 Mn pm kudar RM Inn 00 mm. Jan unkn um/2015 hmgga um I/2016 RM 500 no N HDiIh3mwnks1PBF\DOiEIw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Q Kn.» Pcrbckmjam .......k muamn .......a.. d. s.1a1..... .n.......k Hospml s..|.a.. Abdul Hahm .1. Mnhkamah g1 Kos Per|1c|anJam\pengungkumn .......R mw...a.. :......|.... .1. Hncmlal s..|.a.. Abdul Hahm wlama 3 ham pad: ma. RM mu no RM 300 no sehan m Kos m:mbe|| ..m.—..m.a.. mas: hndapan cox-2 Arm-Inflammatory .1. m....... Swasla RM zrm 00 .......R Jnngkx kayak r1......r sehnnggfl bemm... 73 mhun (73 |ahun (yaugka um. mam — 37 vahun (umur s:kamug) RM 200 00 x .2 bu1nn' RM2,4o0 00 senlum RM 2,400.00 x 35 ..|..... = RM xs.Roo.on RM 86.4% 00 Q] R.» rncmbeln ..|......|.m.. .....». mam... Lynn: .1. Farmasv Swasva sebanyak RM 200 00 unluk .a..gRa ImyaIP|aInKIfselI\1Igga b=rumur 73 .a1..... RM 200 00 x 12 hum. : RM2.4o0 00 suahun RM 2.000 on x 35 mhun = RM 33300 on RM 30.400 00 E K... r.....~|........... Hslulcnapl .......R jnngkx hayal rum... schmggz 73 mm... (73 lnhun < Janglm lmyal1:|ak|)— 37 Aahun ......... sekarang) RM 1.500 00 x :2 bun... RM 42.000 00 an ..R... dmquk RM 42,000 mm x 27 mm... = RM :,ss4.:mu 00 .1. M.J.R......... m K... ‘(flmme/tug and Suppm In/A Them/Iv' Ktlcmngxm mas: Imdapan akan .1. Mahkamah sewakm Pcrlncaraan d§-Mahkemah IN ».u;.na...m. Parmosaw -.4... Snr1n\n-uhnrwmlxe 0... M mm .. mm...-y mm: dun-mm VI] .n.m pm... m Ku}Pgrk|:|n:mn mgr.-4;. n Qnh M Umuv pad: mnsa kemalzmgnn : 33 ralxun Jangka mm huym . 75 Iahun Hsxahun — 33 uhun — 42 mhnn) \ R» m: hlumc Tmmnummv Prvsdltsvs wun Hlmb Ulna Fkxmn hand Jan .1 mas Iahun Jan nan nukamn — 9 km \ mm = RM «:3 797 on RM am 79700 x 9 kah = RM 4 174 I73 00 2. Casmellc Glow mm Ergo Ann Hybnd PI.» klbuw System 2 Venn manufaclumrunnanly 3 N5 mend; wxnnnly Jan vka mm 3 vahunlangkann pzrlukarun — .5 km» 1 um: um :5 sun an m :5 6D0.flDx 5 kzlw : um 23: soo.no 3. Servlcenblchcms . rm. Humcml om: Jangka mas: — 2 rahun Jan an rrul<am1— 11 knh 1 uml RM6EOO00 RM 5 xmnn x IZ xv. = RM xu rmuu u. Ban Coveredmwarran Janggg mnsa — 2 rahun Jangkam grrukann — 11 kah m Ccsmclnc mm Jan mu — 2 min... Jangkx ucnukamn — IZ km}: 1 mm = RM 5 550.00 mm 5 550 on x u kalx = m 55 72am w Glove Cleaner N Na mwx Parmosaw um smm ...m.mm be used .5 mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Jangkx mm — u 5 lahun .v.n vknan g~nuk.m — 75 km 1 um M 550 00 RM 5 am an x 75 kalx = RM 41 250 an m4 645 543.00 m Kn: membmkx mamslknl 3.: am dmuuk 4. Mahkamnh Q Kchfiangnvl pendnpnum PVamlIFs¢h.1nya|< Am dflafsukan RM 2.553 30 sebuhm dan bcrlcmsan pm tankh p1:lh|L:nn424n Junvhnh Am dllnhsurkavl Dada Tankh pexbvcnman [ 13 1 Jelas :1. sum hahawa puntiaan yang mpoman adalah Imluk memasukkan human lerpenncl bagw Nam 15 ganhrugu khas mu unluk kgg ggrgglgrvggn Qgnggtwgn grmg§i§ Ianya berdasarkan sebulhavga dari Lwnnrecn Pmslhelms a. ormonics benankh 24 05.2023. Manakaxa permahonan pmdaan lelah miankan paaa 24.07.2023 [ 14 1 sehumarga flan Lmmecn Pmsnhemes 5. Orthnhcs bertankh 24 05 2023 adalah sepem berikul 9 sw HQiIh3nrwnMs1PBF\DOiEIw -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used .4 mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm LirnbTe ch ........... Lwh ....<c.....«...n. 75 m .. hm .. ......... Mum .3 a.......... n......... Lwk W... .. . ..... .1 0.... ma... Ducrvulxon .5. .z......................... W, . .........W............». W... ..... ...... u.... ........ .... ; aw cm... mm . m. 9...... >4»... N... am. .2 r................ w........ . .v.... ......... w........ se...c....... ..=.... Tum ......... 3...... ......mc..m.............y. c.>.....»..= mm: 5.... dcanrt .. .2 .0... ........... c... .0 sm ».u...a......... Psrmosaw ...... Pr... ma cg». 550 «w... 5.... .......w.. .. ..... .. my .. .......... mm: ........ VII .m.c pm... 4s....... ncm M y.... ra... Pncu om.m 2.»... ....... 5572. 4.25. «M50

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BB-B52NCvC-87-10/2022

PLAINTIF ALIPAWPAW ENTERPRISE DEFENDAN 1. ) CHEN NIKKI 2. ) GREEN HARMONY PET SUPPLIES

ATURAN 18 KAEDAH 19 KKM 2012 - SAMADA PLAINTIF BOLEH MENYAMAN RAKAN KONGSI ATAS KAPASITI PERKONGSIAN TANPA KEBENARAN RAKAN KONGSI - ADAKAH TINDAKAN FATAL DAN TIDAK DAPAT DIPERTAHANKAN - ADAKAH TINDAKAN PLAINTIF SECARA MALAFIDE MENYEMBUNYIKAN FAKTA BAHAWA PERKONGSIAN ADALAH ANTARA PENAMA (DEPONEN KEPADA AFIDAVIT BAGI PIHAK PLAINTIF) DAN DEFENDAN

17/01/2024

Puan Sazlina binti Safie

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=96b7a4fb-3052-4e6d-a955-a651ac728ef1&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - AP-BB-B52NCvC-87-10-2022-o.18 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN PETALING JAYA DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN WRIT SAMAN NO – BB-B52NCvC-87-10/2022 ANTARA ALIPAWPAW ENTERPRISE [BUSINESS REGISTRATION NO.: 202003215681 (003151568 -U)] [TETUAN DALJIT SINGH PARTNERSHIP] …PLAINTIF DAN 1. CHEN NIKKI [IDENTITY CARD NO.: 980703145318] 2. GREEN HARMONY PET SUPPLIES [BUSINESS REGISTRATION NO.: 202103353100 (PG0521908-W)] [TETUAN K H WONG, CHIN & CHEAH]…DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN (RAYUAN INTERLOKUTORI) 17/01/2024 16:07:41 BB-B52NCvC-87-10/2022 Kand. 61 S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 LATARBELAKANG KES Terdapat 2 Notis Rayuan di failkan dalam tindakan ini. [1] Notis Rayuan di Lampiran 57 Ini adalah rayuan Perayu/Plaintif ALIPAWPAW ENTERPRISE atas keseluruhan keputusan Mahkamah selain keputusan yang diputuskan selepas perbicaraan yang diberi pada 28 haribulan November 2023 yang membatalkan Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Perayu/Plaintif dengan kos melalui Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 41. [2] Notis Rayuan di Lampiran 58 Ini adalah rayuan Perayu/Plaintif ALIPAWPAW ENTERPRISE, atas keseluruhan keputusan Mahkamah selain keputusan yang diputuskan selepas perbicaraan yang diberi pada 28 haribulan November 2023, yang membatalkan Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Perayu/Plaintif dengan kos melalui Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 42. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [1] Mahkamah telah meneliti Notis Permohonan, Afidavit-afidavit, hujahan bertulis dan otoriti kedua-dua pihak. [2] Notis Permohonan Lampiran 41 adalah permohonan Defendan menurut Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 2012 dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau di bawah bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah [3] Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 42 pula adalah permohonan Defendan-Defendan menurut Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) dan/atau (c) dan/atau (d) dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau di bawah bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah. [4] Defendan-Defendan memfailkan 2 Notis Permohonan berbeza memandangkan bagi Lampiran 41 yang difailkan di bawah Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, affidavit adalah tidak digunapakai. [5] Walau apapun, permohonan Defendan-Defendan adalah untuk perintah -perintah seperti berikut: - (1) Writ Saman bertarikh 20.10.2022 (“Writ Saman”) dan Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 20.10.2022 (“Pernyataan Tuntutan”) dibatalkan; (2) kos dan kos sampingan untuk tindakan ini terhadap Defendan- Defendan, termasuk kos permohonan ini harus dibayar oleh Plaintif dan WONG SHOO MEI (No. K/P: 841007-14-5162) kepada Defendan-Defendan secara bersesama dan/atau berasingan; dan S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (3) relif-relif lain dan selanjutnya yang dianggap sesuai dan berpatutan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. [6] Alasan permohonan Defendan-Defendan adalah dinyatakan dalam affidavit sokongan yang mana antara lain menyatakan bahawa: 1) Defendan Pertama yang dinamakan di atas adalah pemilik tunggal (sole proprietor) Defendan Ke-2. 2) Plaintif merupakan satu perkongsian (partnership) sepertimana yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif dalam perenggan 1 Penyataan Tuntutan. Namun, dalam Penyataan Tuntutan tersebut, Plaintif telah enggan, gagal dan/atau abai dengan sengaja meninggalkan fakta-fakta yang material, antara lain, Plaintif adalah dimiliki oleh Defendan Pertama dan Wong Shoo Mei (No. K/P:841007-14-5162) (“WSM”). Sesalinan carian SSM Plaintif bertarikh 22.6.2023 adalah sebagaimana dieksibitkan “CN-1”. 3) Tiada sebarang perjanjian dan/atau dokumen yang mengikatkan hubungan Defendan Pertama dengan “WSM” dalam Plaintif. 4) Kesemua kertas-kertas kausa yang difailkan di sini adalah fatal, defektif dan tidak teratur oleh kerana kertas-kertas kausa tersebut adalah difailkan atas arahan “WSM” dan S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 sememangnya bukan Plaintif di sini oleh kerana Defendan Pertama tidak pernah memberi sebarang persetujuan kepada Plaintif untuk memfailkan apa-apa kertas kausa dalam tindakan ini. 5) Kesemua afidavit-afidavit yang diikrarkan oleh “WSM” dan difailkan dalam tindakan ini, secara khususnya, Lampiran 7, Lampiran 10 dan Lampiran 27 dimana mereka telah dideposkan bahawa “WSM” merupakan pemilik Plaintif dan “WSM” telah diberi sepenuh kuasa oleh Plaintif untuk mengikrarkan afidavit bagi Plaintif adalah fatal, defektif dan tidak terpakai dengan sepenuh pengetahuan bahawa Plaintif adalah sebuah perkongsian yang dimiliki oleh Defendan Pertama dan “WSM”. 6) Relif-relif yang dipohon dalam Writ Saman dan Penyataan Tuntutan adalah terkurung (confined) kepada Plaintif dimana Defendan Pertama merupakan salah satu rakan kongsi Plaintif, antara lain, seperti berikut: 12.1. Bahawa Defendan Pertama diperintahkan untuk memulangkan akses kesemua Akaun-Akaun Atas Talian Alipawpaw kepada Plaintif dalam masa 30 hari dari perintah Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dimana Defendan Pertama S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 merupakan salah satu rakan kongsi Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dan “WSM” bersama-sama memilik Akaun-Akaun Atas Talian Alipawpaw; 12.2. bahawa Defendan Pertama diperintah untuk membekalkan penyata akaun dan jumlah keuntungan yang dipegang dalam Akaun-Akaun Atas Talian Alipawpaw diserahkan kepada Plaintif dalam masa 30 hari dari perintah Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dimana Defendan Pertama merupakan salah satu rakan kongsi Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dan “WSM” bersama-sama mempunyai obligasi untuk menyediakan penyata akaun dan jumlah keuntungan tersebut. 7) Relif-relif yang dituntut dalam tindakan ini, “WSM” dengan mala fide, memohon Defendan Pertama membela satu tindakan dimana Defendan Pertama mempunyai kepentingan- kepentingan dalam Plainitif; dalam keadaan sedemikian, apa- apa keputusan yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini akan menjadi sia-sia dan ia adalah sangat prejudis untuk memaksa Defendan Pertama untuk membela tindakan ini; ia selainnya merupakan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [7] Plaintif telah memfailkan affidavit jawapan yang mana antaranya menyatakan seperti berikut: 1) Plaintif mempunyai hak dan kuasa penuh untuk memfailkan tuntutan ini terhadap Defendan-Defendan; 2) Pada setiap masa material, Plaintif memfailkan tindakan ini untuk menuntut kerugian dialaminya yang disebabkan oleh salah laku pihak-pihak berikut:- (a) Defendan Pertama selaku rakan kongsi bergaji (“salaried partner”); (b) Defendan Kedua yang merupakan suatu perniagaan pemilikan tunggal yang didaftarkan di bawah nama Defendan Pertama. 3) Plaintif mempunyai kuasa penuh untuk mengambil apa - apa tindakan di bawah nama Plaintif terhadap mana - mana pihak termasuk rakan kongsi Plaintif (seperti yang dikatakan oleh Defendan-Defendan). 4) Adalah tidak munasabah untuk Plaintif mendapatkan kebenaran Defendan Pertama untuk memfailkan guaman ini kerana Defendan Pertama adalah pihak yang bersalah. S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 5) Alasan locus standi dan kesesamaan hak sebagai rakan kongsi yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan-Defendan adalah tidak bermerit. 6) Kes ini bukan kes yang obviously unsustainable dan/atau kes yang sesuai untuk dibatalkan terutamanya terdapat bukti-bukti dikemukakan di bawah untuk menyokong alegasi Plaintif. 7) Terdapat banyak isu-isu untuk dibicarakan yang memerlukan keterangan saksi-saksi pada masa pendengaran. 8) Defendan-Defendan mengambil pendirian yang bercanggah dalam perenggan-perenggan 5 dan 6, di mana Defendan Pertama memegang dirinya sebagai rakan kongsi dalam Plaintif tetapi menegaskan bahawa tiada perjanjian (perkongsian) di antara Plaintif dengannya sedangkan sebenarnya, Defendan Pertama mengetahui bahawa terdapat perjanjian lisan bahawa Defendan Pertama adalah rakan kongsi bergaji sahaja. 9) Plaintif boleh memulakan guaman ini tanpa kebenaran, persetujuan atau pengesahan Defendan Pertama kerana beliau adalah pihak bersalah; [8] Mahkamah merujuk kepada Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 42. Ini adalah satu Notis Permohonan yang difailkan oleh Defendan Aturan S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) dan/atau (c) dan/atau (d) dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau di bawah bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. [9] Mahkamah ingin merujuk semula kepada peruntukan yang dinyatakan: 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 maybe; (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. Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92, r. 4) S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 4. 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. [10] Mahkamah merujuk kes BANDAR BUILDER SDN BHD & ORS v. UNITED MALAYAN BANKING CORPORATION BHD, SUPREME COURT, IPOH [1993] 4 CLJ 7 yang mana diputuskan: [1] The principles upon which the Court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O. 18 r. 19(1) Rules of the High Court 1980 are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule. 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. [2] So long as the pleadings disclose some course of action or raise some question fit to be decided by the Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed at the trial is no ground for the pleadings to be struck out. [11] Dalam tindakan ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada isu utama yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan-Defendan iaitu locus atau status Plaintif dalam memulakan tindakan ini terhadap Defendan-Defendan. S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [12] Dalam Writ Saman dan Penyataan Tuntutan, Plaintif mengakui bahawa Plaintif didaftarkan sebagai suatu perkongsian yang dikenali sebagai Alipawpaw Enterprise (No.Pendaftaran: 202003215681 (003151568-U) (“Alipawpaw”). [13] Selepas Memorandum kehadiran, Notis Permohonan serta affidavit- afidavit difailkan, barulah timbul isu bahawa perkongsian ini adalah antara deponent bagi affidavit Plaintif yang mengikrarkan affidavit iaitu Wong Shoo Mei (No. K/P:841007-14-5162) (“WSM”) dan juga Defendan Pertama di sini CHEN NIKKI. Ini dibuktikan dari carian SM Plaintif bertarikh 22.6.2023 adalah sebagaimana dieksibitkan “CN- 1”. [14] Oleh demikian, adakah Plaintif boleh menyaman sebagai satu perkongsian apabila rakan kongsi menyaman satu rakan kongsi yang lain (yang mana dinafikan oleh “WSM”). Apatah lagi apabila rakan kongsi yang disaman dan dinamakan sebagai Defendan tidak pernah memberikan apa-apa kebenaran dan persetujuan untuk memulakan tindakan di sini. [15] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes CHU TUANG LIN v. MU BOON HOCK & ANOR yang mana diputuskan seperti berikut: S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “[13] Takrifan perkongsian tersebut telah dikanunkan di bawah Akta Perkongsian 1961 di dalam teks asalnya di bawah seksyen 3 (1) seperti berikut: "Partnership is the relation which subsists between persons carrying on business in common with a view of profit." [19] Mahkamah juga mendapati dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan yang melibatkan Chu & Mu Enterprise jelas menunjukkan bahawa hubungan di antara Plaintif dan Defendan- Defendan adalah rakan kongsi. Ini dapat dilihat melalui maklumat Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM), penyata-penyata akaun dan juga perjanjian pinjaman daripada institusi kewangan.” [16] Dalam kes tersebut, tindakan dimulakan oleh Plaintif iaitu CHU TUANG LIN dan pihak yang disaman dan dinamakan sebagai Defendan adalah 1. MU BOON HOCK (NO. K/P: 721208-02-5259) dan 2. CHU SOCK FEN (NO. K/P: 770609-02-5410). Chu & Mu Enterprise tidak pernah dinamakan atau dijadikan pihak samada Plaintif atau Defendan. [17] Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa ini adalah prosedur sepatutnya dibuat memandangkan pertikaian adalah antara 2 rakan kongsi dan bukan melibatkan syarikat atau perkongsian itu sendiri. Isu yang dibangkitkan samada benar terdapat niat untuk S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 perkongsian atau Defendan hanya sebagai pekerja yang menerima gaji bulanan boleh ditentukan semasa perbicaraa (jika ada). [18] Namun begitu, prosedur yang betul perlulah dipatuhi. Perkongsian adalah satu persefahaman antara rakan kongsi dan apa-apa keputusan dan tindakan perlulah melalui persetujuan, kebenaran dan dengan pengetahuan rakan-rakan kongsi yang terlibat. [19] Mahkamah merujuk kes Malaysia Land Investment Co (Pte) Ltd v. Sathask Realty Sdn Bhd & Ors [2001] 1 MLJ 4515 YA Clement Skinner J memutuskan: - “(2) Where a challenge to authority in commencing proceedings has been made, the burden of proving that the suit has been instituted with the authority of the company rests on the plaintiff (see p 461D). The plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to show how and when the authorisation was given by the board of directors of the plaintiff and how and when that full approval by the plaintiff was given. Hence, those were merely bare assertions by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proving that Mr. Wong had the authority to commence the suit.” “In the circumstances, I am satisfied that this action was commenced in the name of the plaintiff company without the proper authority and must accordingly be struck out.” S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [20] Kes ST VR VEERAPPAN JUGA DIKENALI SEBAGAI & ORS V ARUNACHALAM A/L VENKATACHALAM & ORS [2014] MLJU 1771 telah mengulas dengan terpeinci tentang perkara ini dan Mahkamah rujuk semula seperti berikut: DECISION (S Nantha Balan JC) [1] This is my decision in respect of 2 applications (Enclosure 23 and 35) made by First and Second Defendants to strike out the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim under Order 18 Rule 19 (1) (a),(b), (c) or (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of Rules of Court 2012. The suit is filed by three senior gentlemen all ordinarily residing in various districts in the state of Tamil Nadu, South India. They were at one time partners of a partnership known as “Muthiah Brothers”. The other partners of Muthiah Brothers are the Third Defendant and two others, namely ST M Muthiah and ST. SP. Subbiah. [3] The issue presently is one of locus standi of the present Plaintiffs to prosecute this suit without joining the estate of ST M Muthiah and without joining ST SP Subbiah. The Defendants maintain that the non-joinder of these two parties is fatal to the action, whereas the Plaintiffs maintain that this is not an action by the partnership and is in fact an action by the three partners in respect of their respective share or interest in the assets of the partnership which they allege S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 had been fraudulently transacted and/or conveyed by the First defendant to the Second Defendant. [10] And so, the Defendants maintain that a perusal of the SOC shows that the suit is predicated on a “web of partnership” and the suit is incompetent as two of the partners are not before the court. As such, the suit is defective and must be struck out. [11] At the outset, I do agree with the submission of counsel for the Plaintiff that in this action, the Plaintiffs are suing for their own shares and interest in respect of the properties in question and this may be gleaned from prayers (c), (d) and partially from prayer (e). But that is only part of the claim. The rest of the claim pertains to the partnership as a whole. In the earlier part of this judgment I have emphasized (in bold) those parts of the reliefs where I thought it was a claim by the partnership. [12] As such, the inference that is to be made is that whilst some part of the claim is personal and peculiar to the three Plaintiffs, there are other parts which suggest that the action is, in pith and substance, a claim made on behalf of the partnership. Having read the SOC in its entirety, I am impelled to the view that the Plaintiffs, whilst prosecuting a claim in respect of their own individual shares/interests S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 are also claiming reliefs for and on behalf of what used to be the partnership of Muthiah Brothers, which has since been dissolved. [13] But it is clear that as a matter of law, when an action is made on behalf of a partnership, the action should be in the name of the firm or failing that in the names of all the partners of that partnership. Otherwise the action is fatally defective and ought to be struck off. [14] In MK Varma v Oli Mohamed (1950) MLJ 80, it was held that the plaintiffs had the alternatives of joining all the partners as plaintiffs or take the advantage of the special procedure by suing in the name of the firm. In that case, they failed to take either alternative and the claim was dismissed. [15] In Sivagami Achi v P RM Ramanathan Chettiar & Anor (1959) MLJ 221, it was held that the action was defective for non-joinder of the representatives of two deceased partners and the defendants are under no duty to remedy the defect. [16] In Public Trustee v Elder (1926) Ch 776, the Court of Appeal laid down the salutary principle that all the entities which constituted the partnership should be before the court, otherwise the action is defective and will be struck out accordingly.” [21] Plaintif dalam hujahan mereka menegaskan bahawa tiada kesilapan dalam memulakan tindakan atas nama perkongsian S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 memandangkan Defendan adalah pihak yang salah dan telah melakukan tindakan yang tidak sewajarnya dalam perkongsian. Pihak Plaintif merujuk kepada kes Tang Chok Ching V Wong Ik Tieng & Ors [1973] 2 MLJ 25 at 26, yang mana Plaintif berhujah “…the Federal Court acknowledged that a partnership can bring an action against one or more of its members; [22] Mahkamah merujuk semula kepada fakta kes tersebut: “In this case the respondents suing as a firm had claimed payment of a debt due by the appellant to the firm. It appeared that the appellant was one of the partners of the firm. (2) Although a firm could bring an action against one or more of its members, where judgment was obtained by the firm against one or more of its partners, no execution could be issued without leave of the court or a judge: The action was commenced by the respondents, suing under the firm name of Lian Seng Timber Contractor Company, by a specially endorsed writ issued on June 5, 1971. a judge; The second ground of appeal is that the debt being due to the firm, the action should have been brought in the name of the firm and not in the names of individual partners. This ground, to my mind, is also without any substance. It is clear from the title of the action that the S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 individual partners were suing in the name of the firm, so that the action was essentially an action by the firm. It is true that there was no need for the individual partners to disclose their names in the title to the action, but such disclosure was a mere irregularity which, in my judgment, did not render the proceedings null and void.” [23] Dapatan Mahkamah adalah bahawa fakta dalam kes ini berbeza dengan kes yang dirayu sekarang. Ini adalah kerana; a) Pertama sekali, Plaintif menyaman sebagai sebuah perkongsian; b) Kedua, rakan kongsi adalah WSM dan Defendan Pertama sahaja dan tiada lain; c) WSM tidak secara telus memplidkan perkara ini dalam Penyataan Tuntutan (fakta bahawa WSM dan Defendan Pertama adalah rakan kongsi); d) Dakwaan WSM dalam Penyataan Tuntutan adalah salahlaku Defendan Pertama dan kemungkiran tanggungjawab fidusiari, frod, tort serta penyelewengan. Terdapat perbezaan antara tanggungjawab rakan kongsi atau pekerja yang dibayar gaji bulanan; S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 e) Terdapat gantirugi yang dituntut atau akan ditentukan oileh Mahkamah samada dibayar oleh Defendan Pertama atau sebaliknya jika perlu ditanggung oleh Plaintif sebagai satu perkongsian atau WSM sendiri. f) Ini perlu dibuktikan oleh WSM atas kapasiti beliau sendiri dan bukan atas locus perkongsian yang mana (jika dibuktikan atau secara nyata jika dilihat dari carian SSM), Defendan Pertama juga adalah rakan kongsi perniagaan yang sama. [24] Isu locus ini penting dalam memulakan tindakan kerana pada dapatan Mahkamah, ia akan melibatkan kos dan gantirugi yang perlu ditanggung atau dibayar oleh mana-mana pihak yang mana Mahkamah perlu tentukan kelak. Ini juga yang diputuskan dalam kes Malaysia Land Investment Co (Pte) Ltd v. Sathask Realty Sdn Bhd & Ors serta hujahan Defendan-Defendan bahawa kos tindakan ini sepatutnya ditanggung dan dibayar sendiri oleh WSM. [25] Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah menolak untuk membenarkan kos dibayar oleh WSM memandangkan dalam tindakan ini, WSM tidak memfailkan tuntutan ini atas kapasiti peribadi dan isu ini tidak pernah diputuskan atau diperintahkan setakat ini. Berbanding dengan kes yang dirujuk, pihak yang diperintahkan membayar kos telah didapati S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 membuat satu tindakan bagi kepentingan dirinya atau melebihi kepentingan lain atau kepentingan perkongsian. [26] Tambahan pula, adalah menjadi satu perintah yang tidak dapat dilaksanakan apabila Mahkamah memerintahkan satu pihak yang tidak dinamakan dalam tindakan untuk membayar kos. Oleh sebab itu, semasa perintah diberikan, Mahkamah memerintahkan agar kos ditanggung oleh pihak Plaintif dan dibayar kepada Defendan- Defendan memandangkan saman ini difailkan oleh Plaintif dan Penama (WSM) bukan pihak untuk diberikan perintah melalui tindakan ini. [27] Mahkamah akur bahawa untuk menggunapakai prinsip pembatalan kes di bawah aturan ini, ia harus digunakan dengan berhati-hati. Dalam kes SERUAN GEMILANG MAKMUR SDN BHD V KERAJAAN NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR & ANOR [2016] 3 MLJ 1 AT 17 dan kes-kes lain yang dirujuk, prinsip adalah bahawa: “The discretionary power of the court to strike out an action summarily is a drastic power. It may be exercised only in plain and obvious cases and must be exercised with the utmost caution (see: CC Ng & Brothers Sdn Bhd v. Government of the State of Pahang [1985] 1 CLJ 235; [1985] 1 MLJ 347 and Solai Realty Sdn Bhd v. S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad [2013] 1 LNS 384; [2013] 4 MLJ 545).” [27] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa isu locus adalah satu isu penting dan tidak dapat diperbaiki jika tidak dimulakan dengan cara dan prosedur sepatutnya. Pada pandangan Mahkamah, jika sekalipun tindakan ini wajar dimulakan, ia boleh dimulakan sebagai “WSM” (mendakwa sebagai satu perkongsian XXX)” dan meletakkan Defendan-Defendan untuk membela tindakan (jika sekalipun Defendan Pertama hanyalah Pekerja yang dibayar gaji). Sekian untuk pertimbangan YAH. Disediakan oleh: Sazlina Safie ……………………………………. Sazlina Bt Safie Hakim Sesyen, Mahkamah Sesyen 3 Sivil, Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya, Selangor. Tarikh :17/1/2024 S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 PEGUAMCARA PLAINTIF: EN. JOSHUA KONG JUN WAI EN. ALVIN TAN KENG YI [TETUAN DALJIT SINGH PARTNERSHIP] PEGUAMCARA DEFENDAN: EN. CHIA WILSON [TETUAN K H WONG, CHIN & CHEAH] S/N 6S3llIwbU6pVaZRrHKO8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AB-22NCvC-24-08/2021

PLAINTIF 1. ) NOORIZAN BINTI MOHD AKHIR 2. ) NOORIAN BINTI MOHD AKHIR DEFENDAN 1. ) MUHAMMAD NADZERI BIN NUSURUDDIN (sebagai wakil litigasi kepada si mati NASURUDIN BIN HUSSEIN) 2. ) AZIZI BIN ABDULLAH @ ADNAN (sebagai wakil litigasi kepada si mati ABDULLAH @ ADNAN BIN HUSSAIN) 3. ) ZAINOL ABIDIN BIN RAMLI (sebagai wakil litigasi kepada si mati HINDON @ FATIMAH BINTI HUSAIN) 4. ) RAHIMAN BIN ABDUL MALIK (sebagai wakil litigasi kepada si mati ABDUL MALIK BIN HUSAIN) 5. ) ABU BAKAR BIN ZEEN

Civil Justice - case commenced by way of an originating summons - allowed to proceed as if initiated by writ of summons pursuant to Order 28 rule 8 Rules of Court 2012 - small estates distribution - order of distribution made by concealing names of plaintiffs who were rightful heir to the property - on a balance of probabilities plaintiffs have proven to have been left out as heirs to the property - for the relevant authority under the Small Estates Distribution Act 1955 (Act 98) to decide once and for all on the matter - time period of limitation is suspended and extended pursuant to section 29 (b) Limitation Act 1953 - operates in favour of the plaintiffs to sue the defendants for their wrong doing by not disclosing their names as heirs to the property - law applicable is intended for the benefit of all parties to the case and not only the defendants - claim by plaintiffs allowed with costs - parties are restored back to original position.

17/01/2024

YA Tuan Muniandy a/l Kannyappan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d7d82f0b-5979-4637-af04-7cb519134ff1&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT TAIPING IN THE STATE OF PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN SAMAN PEMULA NO. AB-24NCvC-186-11/2019 WRIT SAMAN NO. AB-22NCvC-24-08/2021 BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS 1. NOORIZAN BT MOHD AKHIR 2. NOORIAN BT MOHD AKHIR AND DEFENDANTS 1. MUHAMMAD NAZERI BIN NUSURUDDIN (LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE DECEASED NUSURUDDIN BIN HUSSEIN) 2. AZIZI BIN ABDULLAH@ADNAN (LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE DECEASED ABDULLAH @ ADNAN BIN HUSSAIN) 3. ZAINOL ABIDIN BIN RAMLI (INHERITOR TO DECEASED HINDON @ FATIMAH BINTI ABDULLAH) 4. RAHIMAN BIN ABDUL MALIK LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVE TO ABDUL MALIK BIN HUSAIN) AND INTERVENER ABU BAKAR BIN ZEEN. 17/01/2024 22:58:22 AB-22NCvC-24-08/2021 Kand. 78 S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT Mode of Process [1] For the record, this case started off as an Originating Summons no. AB-24NCVC-186-11/2019. As the case entails substantial dispute of facts, it was allowed to be continued as writ of summons pursuant to Order 28 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) vide order of court on 10.6.2021, which reads as the following: AB-24NCvC-186-11/2019 10.6.2021 Terdapat pertikaian fakta didalam permohonan yang dibuat melalui Saman Pemula – 1. Berkenaan isu penyembunyian waris-waris semasa Perintah pembahagian hartanah dibuat, yang berunsurkan "tipuan". 2. Terdapat pertikaian fakta berkenaan pembahagian hartanah. 3. Pemakaian had masa terhadap tuntutan pemohon-pemohon dibawah Akta Had Masa 1953. Oleh kerana terdapat pertikaian fakta, prosiding melalui Saman Pemula adalah tidak wajar menurut Order 5 rule 4 (1) (b) ROC 2012. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah menggunapakai Order 28 rule 8 ROC 2012 untuk prosiding berterusan "as if cause or matter begun by Writ". Tiada perintah kos. Saman Pemula dan affidavit-affidavit sokongan yang difailkan - akan membentuk sebagai Writ dan Penyata Tuntutan. Affidavit-affidavit jawapan yang difailkan oleh Responden kelima dan Pencelah - akan membentuk sebagai Penyata Pembelaan. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Responden-responden 1 hingga 4 yang tidak masukkan kehadiran - perlu diberitahu berkenaan tarikh-tarikh akan datang. Pencelah akan dirujuk sebagai Defendan ke – 5. Subsequently, on 17.8.2021 pursuant to case management vide e- review, the Deputy Registrar of this court had directed the following: 17.8.2021 Pengurusan kes secara pertukaran emel. Setelah merujuk perkara ini kepada pihak Omnesti/BTM berkenaan kekangan pihak pihak tidak dapat memfailkan isu isu untuk dibicarakan kerana pendaftaran asal kes adalah di bawah kod 24NCvC (Saman Pemula), maka kes ini akan ditutup dan didaftarkan dengan nombor kes yang baru dan menggunakan kod 22NCvC. Relief claimed by plaintiffs [2] Claim by the plaintiffs against defendants is for the following relief, as in its original form: (a) Bahawa Perintah Borang E Guaman Pembahagian No. G.P. L & M 349/41/1996 dan/atau 530/97 bertarikh 20/03/1997 berkaitan hartanah-hartanah GM 887, Lot 3899, Mukim Bukit Gantang Daerah Larut & Matang, Negeri Perak (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Mukim Bukit Gantang EMR236/EMR3949) dan GM 881 , Lot 4746, Mukim Bukit Gantang, Daerah Larut & Matang, Negeri Perak (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Mukim Bukit Gantang EMR235), yang telah diserahkan/dibahagikan kepada Nasurudin Bin Haji Hussein, Abdullah @ Adnan Bin Hussain, Hindon @ Fatimah Binti Husain dan Abdul Malik Bin Haji Husain adalah diperintahkan sebagai batal, tidak sah dan tidak terkesan; S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (b) Bahawa Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Larut & Matang hendaklah membatalkan bahagian Nasurudin Bin Haji Hussein, Abdullah @ Adnan Bin Hussain, Hindon @ Fatimah Binti Husain dan Abdul Malik Bin Haji Husain di dalam hartanah - hartanah tersebut; (c) Bahawa status quo pihak-pihak dikembalikan dan dikekalkan sebagaimana sebelumnya dan hartanah-hartanah tersebut diletakkan hak semula kepada simati; (d) Bahawa perbicaraan bagi harta pusaka Hajjah Gayah Binti Haji Musa diadakan/dijalankan/didengari semula (e) Bahawa kesemua transaksi-transaksi berkaitan dengan apa-apa hasil dari hartanah- hartanah yang masih belum dijual yang telah dan/atau sedang disewakan hendaklah dibahagikan semula mengikut hak Pemohon-pemohon dan seorang lagi waris kadim yang sah iaitu Nadjiree Bin Mohd Akhir (No. KP: 560216-10-5019/4922222) atau waris-warisnya yang sah. Pursuant to the relief claimed, the impugned properties are Lot 3899 and Lot 4746 at Mukim Bukit Gantang Daerah Larut & Matang, Negeri Perak. [3] This case involves a family tussle over property left by the plaintiffs’ mother Tok Gayah. The dispute pertains land with lot no. 3899 and lot no. 4746 at Bukit Gantang, Taiping. Hajah Gayah binti Haji Musa (Tok Gayah) during her life time had married twice. The first marriage was to Haji Husain and they had four children; her second husband was Haji Mohd Akhir and their union resulted in three children (including the plaintiffs). Tok Gayah had landed property which includes lots of land at Bukit Gantang, which has become the S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 emblematic property in this case. As an aside, there were problems too pertaining to Tok Gayah’s other property such as lot no. 1049 at Tupai. The ensuing paragraphs would unfold narrative of the case. Background Facts and testimony of the First Plaintiff [4] The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had kept information on the status of the disputed land at Bukit Gantang (lot no. 3899 and lot no. 4746) from them. Hence, this “secret” became an argument between the belligerent parties, which included the intervener. The sum and substance of the case was the conflict in the inheritor’s list and distribution of Tok Gayah’s estate. [5] It all began when the fourth defendant (D4) Rahiman bin Abdul Malik (who testified in court as SP1) had informed the court that an application for an order of distribution of property was made under the then Small Estates Distribution Ordinance 1955 (now Act 98) for two lots of land at Bukit Gantang after his father, Abdul Malik bin Husain had died. Upon his father’s death, matters related to the land were handled by SP1 in the year 2009. On 22.4.2013, part of the said land was transferred to three other names, who were Abdul Malik’s children, which were SP1 and his siblings. Subsequently, ownership of the land was transferred/sold to the fifth defendant (D5) Abu Bakar bin Zeen, who is SP1’s brother-in-law on 17.5.2013. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 This transfer took place as SP1 was certain the other three children of Tok Gayah, from her second marriage had no right to the property, as was told by his father. [6] Trigger to the case was when SP1 informed the first plaintiff (P1) Noorizan binti Mohd Khir, who had testified in court as SP2 that in the year 2015 the land was already sold. SP1 told the court, SP2 was shocked with the news. SP2 then on her own undertook some searches over her mother’s property with the relevant authorities, and she discovered Lot 1843 at Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang carried the names of children from her mother’s first husband Haji Husain. This had initiated the paper trail seeking more information about Tok Gayah’s property, specifically who and whom had in fact inherited her property. Consequently, from the year 2015 to 2017, she and her sister the second plaintiff (P2) Noorian, who testified in court as SP3 had tried to obtain more information on their mother Tok Gayah’s property. However, it turned out to be arduous as most of the documents and records were held by Tok Gayah’s children from her first marriage. This had mired the family tussle over the properties belonging to Tok Gayah. [7] Not relenting, in the year 2018, both the plaintiffs had obtained the legal services of their lawyers from Zainal Azahar & Co to conduct S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 more formal and official searches on Tok Gayah’s property. Resulting from the searches carried out, SP2 was informed Abdul Malik bin Husain had managed the lots of land. She also said based on Perintah Pembahagian Harta in the year 1997, which was verified in the year 2018, it was unearthed that she and her siblings were excluded from Tok Gayah’s inheritor’s list as their names were missing from the said Order. [8] After having obtained advice and also relevant documents on the landed properties, SP2 lodged a police report no. 13915/18 on 30.5.2018 at Sungei Petani, exhibited as P22, on the non-disclosure of rightful heirs to Tok Gayah’s property. She had then proceeded to lodge a caveat on the land with lot no. 3899 at Bukit Gantang district, to protect her interest, as well as her siblings (see P26). Upon obtaining permission in the form of Perintah Kebenaran, she then proceeded to take steps to annul the order of inheritance obtained without their knowledge. [9] SP2 recounted in court that her mother died in the year 1989 and she came to know that lot no. 3899 at Bukit Gantang was sold in the year 2015. She claimed that she was not informed of the transaction involving the land or its sale, therefore she was caught unaware when she was told by Rahiman that the said land had been sold. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 She testified that there had been an act of non-disclosure by the defendants, of her right to the said property as well as her siblings’. So, obviously from her testimony, she was kept in the dark on the transaction involving the land in which she has a right as heir to the property. [10] To fortify her case further, she had testified Tok Gayah had dealt with lawyers from Messrs. Ariffin & Co. in respect of her earlier hibah (gift), by which her mother wished to transfer ownership of the land at Bukit Gantang to her and her siblings. She recounted she went along with her mother and Abdul Malik bin Husain to see the lawyers. She said Abdul Malik was with her as Tok Gayah wanted him to be a witness that the land would be given to SP2 and siblings. However, the said transfer could not proceed as there was a caveat by a third party. There was also a letter from Tok Gayah to the lawyers dated 18.7.1988 (see P7), which states her intention to transfer ownership of the land to SP2 and her siblings. The defendants had countered her testimony, stating Tok Gayah had actually wanted to give the Bukit Gantang land to Abdul Malik, as SP2 and her siblings already had ownership of land at Pengkalan Aor and Tupai. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [11] The defendants had also opposed her testimony and allegations made against them and made it clear that SP2 did not claim her stake in the property, as such, there was in fact no “hiding” or non- disclosure by the defendants. Further, in response to the delayed reaction on the part of SP2, in order to claim her right to the property, which was after a span of 30 years, it was suggested by the defendants that SP2 only pursued with her quest for the property in the year 2018 after her step-siblings, i.e. children from Tok Gayah’s first marriage had died. SP2 in turn had denied both propositions by the defendants. Her reply was that she had lodged a police report in the year 2018 and had always wished to pursue with her claim to the property. [12] On that score, this court had intervened by asking counsel for defendants, how could they obtain the order of distribution of property without a complete list of heirs or inheritors (senarai waris) to the deceased property. He had informed the court the list had existed, but it could not be traced now and attempts made to track down the list from the relevant authorities had failed as a period of 30 years had lapsed from the time the list was drawn up. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Testimony of the second plaintiff [13] The second plaintiff Noorian binti Mohd Akhir (P2) who testified in court as SP3 told a similar story as her sister SP2. She too knew of the disputed land from her mother since the year 1988. According to her, when she and her sister Noorizan did a search on Lot no. 743, her mother’s name was not in the grant, although Tok Gayah was entitled to 1/8 share of the property. It then dawned on them, if their mother’s name was not included, chances for their names to be excluded from the list would be greater. Thus, the probe trail was pursued for the land at Bukit Gantang, Taiping. When she was cross examined as to the reason why she took a long time to institute a claim to the property, she had answered, she and her sister SP2 had given the grant for the land at Bukit Gantang to their brother Adnan to process the transfer of ownership. Adnan had apparently told them to wait, until one of their uncle’s passed on. However, the process of the ownership transfer had stalled, as Adnan had died when he was at Mecca. Testimony of the intervener SD1 [14] In turn, the intervener Abu Bakar bin Zeen had testified in court as SD1, stating on oath that Tok Gayah had towards her end of life made an oral hibah that her properties be divided amongst her S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 children from her two marriages. According to him it was done vide hibah, as initiation to the process of ownership transfer. However, according to him since the law as he understands, the properties could only be transferred to one nominee, the two lots of land at Bukit Gantang, Taiping were transferred to his father-in-law, Abdul Malik bin Husain, whilst the other two lots at Pengkalan Aor and Tupai were transferred to the plaintiffs, which had turned out successful, but the transfer of the Bukit Gantang land has become problematic, leading to the present case in this court. [15] When asked if the defendants had intended to withhold information on the land to the plaintiffs, SD1 firmly disagreed. He said there was a discussion between him, his father-in-law and the plaintiffs, whereby plaintiffs knew that the land was given to Abdul Malik bin Husain and his siblings. He was sure the plaintiffs were well aware of this, even from the time the application for small estate distribution was made until up to the point when the inheritance order was given, and duly registered with the land office. In other words, according to him the plaintiffs knew of the entire process involving the land which was given to Abdul Malik. [16] Interestingly, when SD1 was cross-examined, case of the plaintiffs was put forth to him, specifically on the letter dated 18.7.1988 from S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Tok Gayah to Ariffin & Co. who had urged the lawyers to go ahead with cancellation of the caveat and transfer the property to her children. Although the letter was unclear if the property was to be bequeathed to her children from the first and second marriage or either one to which SD1 agreed there was an uncertainty, thereupon casting doubt on what was Tok Gayah’s real intention. However, the testimony of SP2 throws light on the intention of Tok Gayah to have those properties to be transferred to her and her siblings. [17] He had also testified he became involved in the case as he had purchased or acquired the Bukit Gantang land for value from Abdul Malik bin Husain and his siblings. SD1 maintained he acquired it from the person whose name was on the grant, which in this case, was Abdul Malik bin Husain. He had paid a price for the land by way of installments from the year 2013 to 2015. However, it was pointed out to him that he did not complete payment but yet wanted to transfer its ownership in a haste, thus insinuating it was a calculated attempt to exclude the plaintiffs from ownership of the said land. [18] SD1 had also described his experience dealing with SP2 on another land with lot no. 1049 at Tupai. He explained SP2 had sought his help to prevent this plot of land from being auctioned off. In contrast to that, SP2 had retorted she needed assistance for a loan and she S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 approached her brother, Abdul Malik for help. But in his testimony, SD1 agreed that he had helped her and paid an initial sum of RM20,000 which was disagreed by SP2 but agreed SD1 had paid an amount of only RM8,000. [19] The story turned out to be more complicated, when SD1 testified that during the process of payment of the remaining amount for the said land, SP2 upped the price from RM60,000 to RM150,000. That being the case, SD1 did not want to purchase the land and requested the earlier payment of RM20,000 be returned to him. It had turned out SP2 had refused to return the amount of RM20,000, which SD1 had paid upfront. He plainly put it, the plaintiffs had dishonored on the sale of the land, thus amounting to cheating, to which this court had interposed by stating it is not so, but only a default on the sale of the alleged land. [20] Another puzzle which had developed in this case is, when SD1 told the court, RISDA had written a letter to him recognising him as the developer of the land with lot no. 1049. On this same point, SP2 admitted she had also received a copy of the letter and was perplexed how RISDA acknowledged, and permitted him to develop the land. SD1 in turn had asserted RISDA had obtained agreement from the owner of the land, SP2 in order to allow him to develop the S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 land, giving the impression that SP2 knew of the letter as well as background history of the land. SD1 had raised this issue to show that he had a brush with SP2, with the sole intent of discrediting her, but it fell flat without any significance. Testimony of Mazlipah [21] Next in court was Mazlipah binti Abdul Malik who testified as SD2, also as an intervener to the proceeding. She intervened to protect her right, right of her sister Marwani binti Abdul Malik, her brother Rahiman bin Abdul Malik who is the fourth defendant in the case. She became an intervener, as the plaintiffs had alleged that the defendants had concealed information on Tok Gayah’s property, specifically on the land at Bukit Gantang, Taiping. It was also because she was apprehensive of the case outcome, in case any payments are to be made, she would also benefit. [22] She emphasized that the defendants did not mask the inheritors’ list when they obtained the Perintah Pusaka Kecil on 20.3.1997 (P23). She also stressed that the plaintiffs knew and agreed that the land would be given to Tok Gayah’s children from her second marriage. She continued to state, two lots of land were transferred to the plaintiffs, and the other two lots at Bukit Gantang had not been transferred to her father as Tok Gayah had passed on before the S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 intended transfer of ownership could be carried out. She had told the court, what her father had purportedly informed her on her grandmother’s property. Although she did not know as to what had restricted the transfer of ownership but she came to know of the restriction, when the plaintiffs disclosed documents, revealing that there was a caveat entered by them. [23] When asked by counsel for plaintiffs, if the plaintiffs were unaware of the lots of land at Bukit Gantang Taiping, she had replied it would be unlikely as they had in their possession, a letter dated 18.7.1988 from Tok Gayah to her lawyer, Ariffin & Co. on the transfer of ownership of the land to the defendants. She declared that the plaintiffs have now changed their story to suit their claim, from having knowledge of the land; to no hibah from Tok Gayah; to a position now that there had been a hibah that the land was given as a gift to them. Related to this, she asserted, she and her siblings were the only inheritors of the property belonging to Abdul Malik bin Husain, who had inherited the said land from Tok Gayah. Subsequently, she and her siblings transferred lot 3899 to Abu Bakar bin Zeen. [24] She reiterated SP2 and SP3 were wrong to accuse the defendants of non-disclosure of the available property to them. She remarked S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 that their names were not listed in Borang A from the Ketua Pengarah Tanah Galian, Unit Pusaka Kecil, if at all their names were listed, they could have refused the rights to the property vide another Form “DDA” prescribed under the law. She had insisted the property was handed down from Tok Gayah to her father and his siblings with the knowledge and agreement of the plaintiffs. [25] When asked by her counsel during re-examination, if there was any basis for the plaintiffs’ claim, her line of argument was simple – that the plaintiffs had already in possession of land at Tupai, hence the land at Bukit Gantang Taiping was for Tok Gayah’s other children. She underscored this by saying this was what her father supposedly had told the plaintiffs, “there was no need to claim for this property”. Apparently, there was no objection from the plaintiffs at that time. She further argued plaintiffs knew on the status of the land in the year 2015, but only filed this claim in November 2019, accentuating on the length of time they took to act. [26] It is contended by the defendants that the lots of land at Bukit Gantang Taiping were given to the defendants through hibah and it was agreed by all, including the plaintiffs. Next, the reason Abdul Malik went to the lawyers Ariffin & Co was to be part of the process of transfer of ownership of the land to him and not to witness the S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 transfer of ownership to SP2 as remarked by the plaintiffs. Moreover, the defendants had argued the presence of Abdul Malik at Ariffin & Co was because Tok Gayah wanted to transfer ownership of the land to him. Sum up of witnesses’ testimony [27] Overall, the defendants sustained that there was no element of concealment of the inheritors’ list and there was no conspiracy by them with such an oblique intent. They elaborated to the court the onus was on the plaintiff to show that they were entitled to the property as they wanted to alter status quo as to ownership of said property. Albeit there being a presumption that they could claim their stake to the property; but it remains so as all the plaintiffs’ step siblings have passed away. Therefore, the story in its entirety could not be ascertained. [28] In contrast, the plaintiffs’ sum up position remained constant; there was hibah from Tok Gayah that the land be given to the plaintiffs too. They were consistent there was a cover-up on the part of the defendants to deny them their rightful share to Tok Gayah’s property. The mainstay of their claim is that the defendants had conspired to conceal the application for an inheritance order of Tok Gayah’s property from them. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [29] To conclude, the plaintiffs and defendants are part of Tok Gayah’s direct descendants and are entitled to her estate. Unfortunately, the hibah was incomplete as no formal and documented transfer of ownership had taken place, thus leaving the entire episode of the inheritance of her estate in a state of quandary. Resolution [30] As the plaintiffs have mounted a claim to this court for a relief against the defendants as they have been missed out intentionally from the list of inheritors when the distribution order of property was applied for by the defendants, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, pursuant to section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA/Act 56) to prove to this court that they were in fact left out from the inheritors list, thus disentitling them from their right to their property left by their mother, Tok Gayah. The burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities. In this case, from the testimony of witnesses, as referred to above, there is conflicting testimony between the plaintiffs and defendants. Notwithstanding, it is for this court to decide whether the fact of non-disclosure by the defendants of the plaintiffs’ right to the property, as claimed had occurred on a balance of probabilities. When doing so, this court cannot ignore the evidence by the defendants. Likewise, finding one party’s evidence S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 to be more credible than the other may well be conclusive on the outcome of the fact in issue. Believing one party will mean explicitly or implicitly that the other party was not to be believed on the fact in issue of non-disclosure. [31] On the face of the denial by the defendants, this court has to view the surrounding circumstances in which the parties are positioned when the application was made for a distribution order. The pivotal plane in this case is the fact that both the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled as heir to Tok Gayah’s property. It is also undeniable that both parties would wish to have a stake in the claim to the impugned property which are two pieces of land at Bukit Gantang, Taiping. But one party, being the plaintiffs are left out from being considered at all as rightful heir to the property. From the evidence adduced, it is also apparent that in law and fact, the plaintiffs are entitled to the said property but they were not considered at all when the order of distribution of property was applied for and made at the behest of the defendants. They were not considered, simply because their names were not listed in the list of inheritors as submitted by the defendants. For the defendants to turn it around and say, the list could not be traced as it is was a list utilized thirty years ago when the application was made for distribution, is not a legitimate excuse S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 which is acceptable by a court of law, especially so when the plaintiffs have buttressed a case against the defendants, mounted on an allegation that such a list did not exist at all. It is therefore for the defendants to produce it readily pursuant to section 103 EA to prove that the plaintiffs were in fact named as inheritors before an order for distribution was considered and made pursuant to the law. The plaintiffs for all intents and purposes are not strangers to the property debacle as they are rightful heirs to the property of Tok Gayah, who was their natural mother, thus if their names are listed, they would have been considered in the application for a distribution order. That leaves behind a great probability that such a list including the names of plaintiffs did not exist at all in the first place for consideration. That assumption together with testimony by the plaintiffs that Tok Gayah had taken them to the law office of Ariffin & Co in order to make a hibah to them of the lots of land at Bukit Gantang, Taiping only fortifies the position of the plaintiffs that their names were intentionally left out by the defendants when the application for a distribution order was applied for by the defendants. [32] Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, this court finds that the plaintiffs have been successful in proving to this court by their oral evidence, which was unrebutted in its material particulars by the S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 defendants that there was a deliberate non-disclosure of their names as rightful heir to the properties of Tok Gayah, their mother when the application for a distribution order was made by the defendants. [33] As resolution, a careful, systematic and justified framework that is offered by Islamic jurisprudence could be the way out of this dispute. Next, how often have we indulged in stories or tales which were narrated via oral communication. We do remember them as oral tradition, which has been a vigorous, valid and effective method of communication throughout the ages. Nonetheless, there are instances when more permanent and robust record keeping has to be in place. Tok Gayah’s case is an example, where only her oral testimonies to her property were left, leaving her descendants wrangling over her property. Therefore, proper documentary evidence should be proffered, avoiding this bitter distrust amongst rightful family members, including the plaintiffs and defendants. In the absence of which, a proper inquiry involving all parties who are rightful heir to Tok Gayah’s property to be held, and they be heard before a fair and just distribution order is made, which then would tantamount to be an informed decision. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Findings and conclusion [34] Flowing from the above, this court had finally decided the following, as in its original terms: 1. Keputusan di dalam kes ini adalah setelah selesai perbicaraan penuh isu-isu yang telah diutarakan. 2. Isu pokok adalah samada terdapat sembunyian waris apabila harta pesaka simati dibahagikan antara waris-waris yang layak menerima bahagian mereka masing- masing. 3. Kedua-dua plaintif telah mengutarakan isu, yang mereka juga berhak bersama adik beradik mereka kepada harta pesaka simati dan apabila harta pesaka tersebut dibahagikan dibawah Ordinan Pembahagian Harta Pesaka Kecil di Pejabat Tanah Larut Matang, kedudukan mereka sebagai waris telah disembunyikan dan diabaikan. 4. Isu pokok tersebut haruslah, menurut undang-undang dibuktikan oleh plaintif atas pertimbangan kemungkinan, yang sembunyian waris memang telah berlaku, dan akibat dari itu, terdapat pengabaian hak dan ketidakadilan kepada kedua-dua plaintif dan ahli keluarga mereka, dalam pembahagian harta pesaka simati kepada mereka yang berhak. 5. Berpandukan kepada keterangan lisan dan dokumen yang telah dikemukakan didalam perbicaraan kes ini, adalah nyata dan jelas, plaintif telah mengemukakan bukti kukuh yang hak mereka sebagai waris kepada harta pesaka simati telah disembunyikan. Keterangan tersebut memenuhi beban pembuktian yang terletak diatas kedua-dua plaintif atas dasar pertimbangan kemungkinan. 6. Keterangan defendan dan pencelah yang telah dikemukakan tidak dapat mengugat pertimbangan kemungkinan kes plaintif. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 7. Berikutan dengan itu, tuntutan plaintif adalah dibenarkan dengan kos seperti perintah-perintah yang telah dipohon dalam Saman Pemula asal. 8. Isu kos - peguam plaintif mohon kos sebanyak RM15,000 untuk dibayar oleh D5 dan Pencelah. Peguam D5 dan Pencelah mohon kos ditetapkan sebanyak RM10,000. Mahkamah membenarkan kos sebanyak RM10,000. [35] In respect of paragraph 7 above, the following relief was allowed: “MAKA ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN: - (a) Bahawa Perintah Borang E Guaman Pembahagian No. G.P. L & M 349/41/1996 dan/atau 530/97 bertarikh 20/03/1997 berkaitan hartanah-hartanah GM 887, Lot 3899, Mukim Bukit Gantang Daerah Larut & Matang, Negeri Perak (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Mukim Bukit Gantang EMR236/EMR3949) dan GM 881 , Lot 4746, Mukim Bukit Gantang, Daerah Larut & Matang, Negeri Perak (dahulunya dikenali sebagai Mukim Bukit Gantang EMR235), yang telah diserahkan/dibahagikan kepada Nasurudin Bin Haji Hussein, Abdullah @ Adnan Bin Hussain, Hindon @ Fatimah Binti Husain dan Abdul Malik Bin Haji Husain adalah diperintahkan sebagai batal, tidak sah dan tidak terkesan; (b) Bahawa Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Larut & Matang hendaklah membatalkan bahagian Nasurudin Bin Haji Hussein, Abdullah @ Adnan Bin Hussain, Hindon @ Fatimah Binti Husain dan Abdul Malik Bin Haji Husain di dalam hartanah - hartanah tersebut; (c) Bahawa status quo pihak-pihak dikembalikan dan dikekalkan sebagaimana sebelumnya dan hartanah-hartanah tersebut diletakkan hak semula kepada simati; (d) Bahawa perbicaraan bagi harta pusaka Hajjah Gayah Binti Haji Musa diadakan/dijalankan/didengari semula (e) Bahawa kesemua transaksi-transaksi berkaitan dengan apa-apa hasil dari hartanah- hartanah yang masih belum dijual yang telah dan/atau sedang disewakan hendaklah dibahagikan semula mengikut hak Pemohon-pemohon dan seorang lagiwaris kadim yang S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 sah iaitu Nadjiree Bin Mohd Akhir (No. l(P: 560216-10-5019 I 4922222) atau waris- warisnya yang sah. (f) Defendan Ke-5 dan Pencelah Secara berasingan dan bersama-sama hendaklah membayar kepada Plaintif-plaintif kos tindakan ini sebanyak Ringgit Mataysia Sepuluh Ribu (RM10,000.00) sahaja tertakluk kepada fi alokatur.” Paragraph (d) above, is pertinent and syncs with the audi alteram partem rule which is a fair and just principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party, including the plaintiffs in this case, be given the opportunity to be heard. [36] Therefore, parties are allowed to go back to status quo as they were when Tok Gayah died on 9.6.1989 leaving behind her legacy of wealth in the form of landed properties, including lots 3899 and 4746 at Bukit Gantang, Taiping. One fact is conclusive, the plaintiffs are not to be left out high and dry depriving them of their lion share to the property of their beloved mother Tok Gayah. It cannot be a situation, when only the issues of hers from the first marriage are entitled as legatee of her property. The plaintiffs being equally of status as issues from her second marriage are also legally entitled to the property. In the absence of direct evidence from the authors of the oral communications and/or statements, it is not for SD1 or SD2 to come to this court and testify that they were informed long time ago that the plaintiffs are not entitled to lot no 3899 and 4746 S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 as they had inherited two other properties at Aur and Tupai. It is now for the relevant authority under Act 98 to decide once and for all on the matter. It is also not anything new or strange for SD1 and SD2, as both of them had agreed when cross-examined by the able counsel for plaintiffs that “terpaksa akur bahawa plaintif-plaintif sememangnya mempunyai hak dalam perwarisan harta pusaka semati.”. SD1 too agreed that both the plaintiff did not renounce their right to the property as for lots 3899 and 4746 at Bukit Gantang, Taiping when the purported application for distribution was made vide P23. Issue of limitation of time to sue, as understood in law is a mixed question of law and fact, and the facts and circumstance of the case plays a pivotal role in order for a determination if limitation has set in for the plaintiffs to sue. In the present case, the time period of limitation is suspended and extended subsequently, as they only came to discover the fraudulent act of the defendants not to disclose their names vis right to the impugned in the year 2015 after being informed by SP1 the fourth defendant, after which they undertook searches on the respective properties before a police report was lodged in the year 2018 and the originating summons was pursued with in the year 2019. Thus, section 29 (b) of the Limitation Act 1953 (Act 254) operates in favour of the plaintiffs to sue the defendants for their wrong doing by not disclosing their names as heirs or S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 legatee to their mother’s property being lot no 3899 and 4746 at Bukit Gantang, Taiping. The law applicable in accord with the facts and circumstance of the case fortifies the position of the plaintiffs to be entitled to the relief they had claimed. It is axiomatic that the law applicable to such a situation is intended for the benefit of all parties to the case and not only the defendants. Claim by plaintiffs allowed with costs. Parties are restored back to original position. Dated 17 January 2024 SGD Muniandy Kannyappan Judge, High Court. Nurdiana Binti Zainal Azahar of Tetuan Zainal Azahar & Co, counsel for plaintiffs. Effendi Syah bin Noordin of Tetuan Effendi & Co, counsel for the fifth defendant and intervener. S/N Cy/Y13lZN0avBHy1GRNP8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-28PW-527-10/2022

PEMOHON SKN Land & Development Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) PENCELAH 1. ) Mudajaya Corporation Berhad 2. ) Nazura Dilnasheen Zaman Khan 3. ) SKN EQUITIES & ASSETS BERHAD 4. ) SKN Equities & Assets Berhad 5. ) Jason William Martin Creasey & 1 Lagi PENCELAH DICADANGKAN1. ) Mohammed Hyder Zaman Khan 2. ) Sasitharan A/l Muthalia 3. ) Wong Yew Hume 4. ) Fung Chou Yee Charles [Passport No.: 5. ) Fung Po Foon Becky 6. ) Wong Ching Ming [Passport No.: 7. ) Fung Yu Yee Paul 8. ) Kim Hyun Jung (Pentadbir Esset Shin) 9. ) Kim Mi Kyung 10. ) Choi Young Jai 11. ) Kwon Kui Im 1 2. ) Chae Myeong Hee 1 3. ) Ko Koung Me1 4. ) Kim Nam Hee 1 5. ) Park Mi Suk1 6. ) Ahn You Jung 1 7. ) Lee Chung Yi 1 8. ) Kim Hea Sook 1 9. ) Kim Byung Jin20. ) Liu Ying 21. ) Philip Jong Lip Chiew2 2. ) Diana Loh Yin Fah 2 3. ) Craig Gibbons2 4. ) GLOBAL FANTASY LIMITED2 5. ) Khalid Rafi [Passport No.: 2 6. ) Shin Eun Jung2 7. ) Oleksandr Orlovskyi2 8. ) Looi Boon Han

Appeal against the quantum of costs only. The court took into consideration the time and costs expended by the Liquidator to review voluminous documents necessary to prepare the affidavit in opposition to the application to terminate the winding-up order.

17/01/2024

YA Tuan Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f0c13136-d644-43f1-9dd1-0df5080dda8c&Inline=true

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) COMPANIES’ WINDING-UP NO.: WA-28PW-279-10/2021 In the matter of sections 492, 493 and 494 of the Companies Act 2016; and In the matter of Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation) [Company No.:200501019265 (701381-H)]; And In the matter of SKN Land Development Sdn Bhd [Company No.: 200701042251 (800283-T)]. BETWEEN SKN LAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD [Company No.: 200701042251 (800283-T)] … APPLICANT AND CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES SDN BHD (in Liquidation) [Company No.: 200501019265 (701381-H)] … RESPONDENT AND MUDAJAYA CORPORATION BERHAD (Company No.: 6307-X) & Other Interveners … INTERVENERS 17/01/2024 16:36:09 WA-28PW-527-10/2022 Kand. 217 S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] This is an application by SKN Land Development Sdn Bhd (“the Applicant”) for the termination and/or setting aside of the Winding- Up Order against the Respondent dated 19.09.2019 and for other consequential orders, including for the release of the Liquidator. [2] Alternatively, the Applicant seeks an order for a permanent stay of the Winding-Up Order as prayed for in Enclosure 1. BACKGROUND FACTS [3] The Respondent Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd (“the Company”) was wound up by the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Suit No. WA-28NCC-1070-11/2018 dated 19.09.2018, in which and the court ordered that the Official Receiver (“OR”) be appointed as provisional liquidator of the Company (“Winding-Up Order”). [4] The petition to wind up the Company was filed by Dato’ Sri Shamir Kumar Nandy (“Shamir”) who was a director of the Company from 19.09.2015 to 03.01.2018. [5] Seventy per cent (70%) of the Company is owned by the Applicant. Shamir is a director of the Applicant and an indirect majority shareholder of the Applicant. The balance thirty per cent (30%) of S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 the Company is owned by Ideal Towerwin Sdn Bhd which is wholly owned by Shamir who is also a director of Ideal Towerwin. [6] After the Company was wound up two contending applications were filed by the intervener Mudajaya Corporation Bhd, (“Mudajaya”) and also by SKN Equities Sdn Bhd (“SKN Equities”), a related company of the Applicant, to appoint a private liquidator to replace the OR. [7] At a creditor’s meeting on 13.01.2020, the OR held a voting exercise for the creditors and contributors separately to obtain the votes in relation to the applications to appoint a private liquidator. According to the OR’s report, Mudajaya’s proposed liquidator, Ms Chan Siew Mei, had the majority votes from the creditors as opposed to SKN Equities’ proposed liquidator. [8] After the creditors meeting, the High Court ordered that Ms Chan Siew Mei be appointed as liquidator (“Liquidator”) to replace the OR. PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONTRIBUTORY TO STOP THE WINDING UP PROCESS [9] After the Company was wound up, various applications were filed in the High Court by the Petitioner and/or the contributory of the Company to stop the winding-up process: a) The Petitioner (who filed the Winding-Up Petition against the Company) filed an application to stay the winding-up of the Company vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Companies (Post- S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Winding-Up) No. WA-28PW-236-06/2020 (“Petitioner’s Stay Application”). b) A contributory of the Company, Ideal Towerwin Sdn Bhd (“Ideal Towerwin”), also filed an application to stay the winding-up of the Company vide Kuala Lumpur High Court (Post-Winding-Up) No. WA-28PW-580-10/2019 (“Contributory’s Stay Application”). [10] Both Stay Applications were dismissed by the High Court. The High Court, in dismissing the Petitioner’s Stay Application, made the following findings, inter alia: a) There are no special circumstances for the Court to grant a stay; b) The Petitioner’s allegations regarding the Liquidator’s appointment and her duties are mere assertions without evidence; c) There is some evidence of misfeasance or irregularities within the company demanding investigation. The Company has not filed its audited report for more than ten (10) years since 2009 and there are suggestions of non-compliance by the Company in providing the statement of accounts, books and records to the Liquidator and of non-payment of maintenance charges of units at The Crest Project. S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE TERMINATION OF A WINDING-UP ORDER [11] The Court’s power to terminate a Winding-Up Order is provided by section 493 of the Companies Act 2016 which reads: “Power of court to terminate winding up (1) At any time after an order for winding up has been made, the Court may, on the application of the liquidator or of any creditor or contributory and on proof to the satisfaction of the Court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up of the company ought to be terminated, make an order terminating the winding up of the company as the Court thinks fit. (2) In making an order under subsection (1), the Court may take into consideration, but not limited to, the following facts: (a) the satisfaction of the debts; (b) any agreement by the liquidators, creditors, contributories and other interested parties; or (c) other facts that the Court considers appropriate TERMINATION APPLICATION [12] By Enclosure 1, the Applicant seeks to terminate and/or permanently stay the winding-up of the Company on the following grounds: 12.1 The Applicant has pledged a loan sum of RM40,000,000 (“Pledged Loan Sum”) with UBB Amanah Berhad (“UBB Amanah”) for the benefit of the Company; 12.2 With the Pledged Loan Sum, the Company is commercially solvent and likely to be able to pay all the “Approved Debts” S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 when such debts become due and payable. The Pledged Loan Sum will also leave the Company with a surplus of RM4,318,909.80 for the Company to continue its business and be commercially solvent; 12.3 The termination of the Winding-Up Order will not prejudice the creditors of the Company. [13] The principles governing an application to terminate or permanently stay the winding-up of a company are settled: 13.1 The granting of a termination or permanent stay of winding-up is discretionary and the onus is on the Applicant to make out a positive or sufficient case; 13.2 The Court will refuse a termination or permanent stay of the winding-up if: (a) there is evidence of misfeasance or irregularities demanding investigation; (b) There has been non-compliance by the directors with their statutory duties; (c) It is not conducive to the commercial morality and public interest; or (d) If debts of the company have not been discharged. S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 13.3 The agreement or attitude of creditors, contributors and liquidator. (see the case of Vijayalakshmi Devi d/o Nadchatiram v Dr Mahadevan s/o Nadchatiram & 4 Ors (1995) 3 CLJ 493. THE LIQUIDATOR AND MUDAJAYA’S SUBMISSIONS [14] The Liquidator, Ms Chan Siew Mei, in opposing this application submits that the Applicant has failed to make a sufficient case to terminate or permanently stay the winding-up of the Company. Mudajaya submits that this application ought to be dismissed as the Applicant has failed to satisfy the test stipulated by section 493 of the CA 2016. [15] The main grounds of the submissions above are: (i) The Liquidator has discovered questionable and irregular dealings in the management of the Company. Therefore, there is evidence of misfeasance and irregularities demanding investigation. (ii) Non-compliance by the directors of their statutory duties. (iii) The debts of the Company have not been discharged, which is a requirement of section 493(2)(a). S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [16] Mudajaya submits that the requirement of section 493(2)(a) is for the debts to have been discharged and/or fully satisfied before the Court may consider granting a termination. Whereas in the present application, there is only a pledge to pay in the event this Court allows the application to be terminated. [17] The Liquidator further states in her affidavit and submission as follows: (a) After her appointment, the Liquidator on 25.06.2020 wrote to the Company’s directors, Wong Yew Hume (“Wong”) and Sasitharan A/L Muthalia (“Sasitharan”) as well as the Company Secretary, Rada A/L Palaniasamy (“Rada”), requesting them to prepare and submit to her a Statement of Affairs within fourteen (14) days from 25.06.2020 (“Statement of Affairs”). However, they have failed to submit the Statement of Affairs until today. (b) At the same time, the Liquidator issued a notice dated 14.07.2020 requiring Wong, Sasitharan, Rada and SKN Land to provide the books and papers of the Company (“Books & Papers”) relating to, amongst others, the accounting and financial records of the Company (“Accounting & Financial Records”) and all agreements executed by the Company between 01.01.2010 and 18.09.2019. They failed to comply with the notice. S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (c) Due to the failure of Sasitharan, Wong and Rada to comply with the notice dated 14.07.2020, the Liquidator was constrained to apply for a Court Order to compel them to deliver the Books & Papers to her. On 27.08.2020, this Honourable Court granted an order (“Possession Order”) to compel Sasitharan, Wong and Rada to deliver the Books & Papers to the Liquidator and authorise the Liquidator or her authorised representatives or agents to enter the business office of the Company (“Business Office”) to take custody and possession of the Books & Papers and property in the Business Office. (d) While reviewing the documents in her possession the Liquidator found that the Incomplete Books & Papers show extensive dealings between the Company and entities related to it, namely SKN Land, SKN Equities and U Thant Square Sdn Bhd (“U Thant Square”). There were questionable dealings involving the Company’s assets with a total face value of not less than RM77,777,430.00. (e) In view of the lack of cooperation by Wong, Sasitharan, Shamir, Rada and Ravin Raghu Warren A/L Sundarsagar as Chairman of the Joint Management Body of Crest Development (“JMB”) (collectively, “the Examinees”), the Liquidator was constrained to make an application on 16.04.2021 to orally examine them and compel them to produce the other Books & Papers for the purpose of examination. S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (f) On 23.05.2022, this Court ordered the Examinees to be examined by written interrogatories (“Written Interrogatories”), in respect of the matters set out in the order (“Written Interrogatories Order”). (g) The Liquidator further submits that the total liabilities of the Company based on the face value of the proof of debts (PODs) filed to date, are in the sum of RM159,872,612.23. Additionally, the Company is also subject to the following liabilities: (i) RM4,331,646.00 being the sum which the JMB claimed to be owing the Company to them; (ii) RM8,600,000.00 being the estimated Liquidator’s remuneration and legal and other expenses (“Liquidation Expenses”) incurred since her appointment. (h) In the circumstances, it is plain that the Pledged Loan Sum is grossly insufficient to settle Crest’s total estimated liabilities of RM172,804,253.23 to bring it out of winding-up. Even if the Pledged Loan Sum is used to settle the Pledged Approved Debts of RM35,681,090.23, Crest remains insolvent. FINDINGS BY THE COURT [18] It is settled law that the Court will not terminate the winding-up of a Company if the directors have not complied with their statutory duties. (See Vijayalakshmi Devi d/o Nadchatiram (supra), S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Parkway One Pty Ltd (AU) (2019) NSWSC 1495 and Re Telescriptor Syndicate Limited, HC (UK) (1903) 2 Ch 174). [19] It is evident from the Liquidator’s affidavit that the directors of the Company have failed to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) as follows: (i) The Directors have failed to lodge the Audited Financial Statements (“AFS”) with Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) within six (6) months and thirty (30) days after the financial year ending 31 December for years 2016 until 2018 (sections 259(i), 240 and 249 CA 2016). (ii) The Directors of the Company have failed to keep the Accounting and Financial Records for nine (9) years from 2016 to 2019 as required by section 245(i)(a) and (b) of CA 2016. (iii) The directors have failed to file the Statement of Affairs with the Official Receiver or Liquidator within fourteen (14) days after the winding-up of the Company (section 484 CA 2016). [20] I find that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the test stipulated by section 493(2) of the CA 2016 and the principle laid down by the cases, in particular the decision of the Federal Court in the case Vijayalakshmi Devi cited earlier. [21] This Court further agrees with the submission by Mudajaya, that a pledge to discharge falls short of actual satisfaction of all the debts. S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 In other words, the Applicant is putting the “cart before the horse” in making this application. Thus, the application fails on this ground alone. [22] Reading the affidavits by the Liquidator, it is apparent to this Court that the real reason for this application is to prevent the Liquidator from continuing with investigations concerning the questionable and suspicious conduct by the directors of the Company which may lead to possible criminal and/or civil sanctions against the said directors and to stop all proceedings taken by the Liquidator against Shamir and other directors. Thus, I find this application is actuated by questionable motives. [23] For the above reasons, I dismiss the application for the termination and/or permanent stay of the winding-up of the Company. Due to the lengthy submissions by the parties, I reserve my decision on costs pending submission by the parties on the issue of costs. Dated 17th January 2024 …………t.t………… Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: SARITHA DEVI, NABILA ROSLEE WITH LONG MOHD NOOR ADMAN SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT: TETUAN FIROZ JULIAN COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: CS MONG & CHEW SUE PENG SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT: TETUAN LEE HISHAMUDIN ALLEN & GLEDHILL Cases Referred to: ➢ Vijayalakshmi Devi d/o Nadchatiram v Dr Mahadevan s/o Nadchatiram & 4 Ors (1995) 3 CLJ 493 ➢ Parkway One Pty Ltd (AU) (2019) NSWSC 1495 ➢ Re Telescriptor Syndicate Limited, HC (UK) (1903) 2 Ch 174 Legislation Referred to: ➢ Section 492 of the Companies Act 2016 ➢ Section 493 of the Companies Act 2016 ➢ Section 494 of the Companies Act 2016 ➢ Companies Act 2016 Decision date: 09.10.2023 S/N NjHB8ETW8UOd0Q31CA3ajA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

SUIT NO. WA-22C-32-05/2023

PLAINTIF Allen Cheng Peng Han and Sandhya Saravanan [Messrs Azman Davidson & Co.] DEFENDAN Foo Joon Liang and Kho Jia Yuan [Messrs Gan Partnership]

Enclosure 6. Before this court is the Defendant’s application in enclosure 6 (Enclosure 6) for inter alia a stay of the present Suit (“Suit”) pending the disposal of the Arbitration between (“Arbitration”) the Plaintiff and Damai City Sdn Bhd (“Damai City”) in 2 separate Arbitration proceedings, being one initiated by Damai City against the Plaintiff and the other brought by the Plaintiff against Damai City.

17/01/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bc11c96c-1a79-490c-b2ef-ebb763150a81&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA SUIT NO. WA-22C-32-05/2023 BETWEEN GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN BHD (Company No.: 200501035889 (718036-T) …PLAINTIFF AND KSK LAND SDN BHD (Company No.: 201201043800 (1028277-H) …DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 6) Introduction [1] Before this court is the Defendant’s application in enclosure 6 (Enclosure 6) for inter alia a stay of the present Suit (“Suit”) pending the disposal of the Arbitration between (“Arbitration”) the Plaintiff and Damai City Sdn Bhd (“Damai City”) in 2 separate Arbitration proceedings, being one initiated by Damai City against the Plaintiff and the other brought by the Plaintiff against Damai City. 2 [2] In essence the Defendant submits that there are significant overlaps in the Suit and the Arbitration including 2.1 overlap in the parties 2.2 overlap of issues 2.3 overlap of factual matrix 2.4 overlap in principal witnesses 2.5 overlap in reliefs sought [3] The Defendant thus submits that there may be a risk of inconsistent findings and that the Arbitration will create an issue estoppel as the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant in the Suit is premised upon a Corporate Guarantee issued by the Defendant on 5.8.2022 in favour of the Plaintiff (“Corporate Guarantee”). [4] The Plaintiff opposes Enclosure 6 on the basis of being amongst others 4.1 there are no special or rare circumstances for a stay to be granted 4.2 the Corporate Guarantee issued by the Defendant is an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee 4.3 there is no overlapping of subject matter, cause of action, parties and/or issues between the Suit and the Arbitration proceedings 3 Background Facts [5] The Defendant is the holding company of its subsidiary company, Damai City Sdn Bhd (“DCSB”), who is the developer of a project known as “Cadangan Pembangunan Perdagangan Bercampur yang Mengandungi 3 Blok Menara iaitu: Fasa 1 : 5 Tingkat Besmen dan 10 Tingkat Podium Fasa 2: Menara A – 661 Tingkat Pangsapuri Servis Fasa 3: Menara B – 56 Tingkat Pangsapuri Servis Fasa 4: Menara C – 72 Tingkat Hotel (Fasa 4A) da Hotel Suite Strata (Fasa 4B) di atas Lot 20000 (Lot Lama 111 & 112) Seksyen 63, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Conlay, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur untuk Tetuan Damai City Sdn Bhd” or better known as the 8 Conlay Project (“the 8 Conlay Project”). [6] By way of a Letter of Award dated 09.11.2020 (“the LOA”), the Plaintiff has entered into a construction contract with DCSB (Employer), whereby the Plaintiff was appointed by DCSB as he Main Contractor to carry out the Main Building Works with a Contract Sum of RM1,249,000,000.00 in relation to the 8 Conlay Project where the Main Building Works for the 8 Conlay Project has commenced on 23.11.2020. [7] Under the Clause 1 of the LOA, the following documents shall form part of the construction contract between the parties: a) the LOA and Plaintiff’s letter with correspondences between the parties as appended with the LOA as Annex A; b) Agreement and Conditions of PAM Contract 2006 together with the supplementary clauses, amplification notes, 4 amendments and modifications set out in Document G – Annexure to Conditions of Contract; c) The Contract Drawings; d) The contract Bills; and e) Other documents incorporated in the contract documents, unless expressly stated to be excluded therefrom. (The documents listed above are collectively referred to as ‘the Main Contract’) [8] Subsequently, the Plaintiff and DCSB had via letters of amendments dated 15.12.2020 and 22.03.2022 agreed to amend the terms and conditions of the Main Contract, and further entered into a Supplementary Agreement dated 20.05.2022 (“Supplementary Agreement”) which was to be read together with the Main Contract. The main Contract, the letters of amendments and the Supplementary Agreement are collectively referred to as ‘the Contracts’. [9] Based on the provisions of the Main Contract, DSB is required to pay the Plaintiff for the amount due and payable under the Interim Certificates issued by the Architect. [10] As at 26.07.2022, DCSB had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Contracts to make full payment for Interim Certificate No. 13 (not paid in full at the point in time) to Interim Certificate No. 17(R1) (“Interim Certificate”) leaving an outstanding amount of RM93,107,853.22. [11] In light of its default in satisfying the Interim Certificates, DCSB had approached the Plaintiff on 26.07.2022 and 28.07.2022 to discuss 5 and proposed a repayment schedule to pay the outstanding amount of RM93,107,853.22. [12] On 03.08.2022, DCSB paid and the Plaintiff received a sum of RM5,900,000.00 as part payment towards the outstanding amount being due and payable to the Plaintiff under the Interim Certificates. As a result, the balance outstanding amount stood at RM87,207,853.55. [13] The Parties have on 05.08.2022 entered into an agreement dated 05.08.2022 (‘August 2022 Agreement’) which read together with the Contracts, setting out the terms for the arrangement of repayment of the Outstanding Sum. [14] Pursuant to Clause 3 of the August 2022 Agreement, the Defendant had in the capacity of the holding company of DCSB, executed a corporate guarantee dated 05.08.2022 (“Corporate Guarantee”) in favour of the Plaintiff in consideration of the Plaintiff having agreed with the Defendant to enter into the August 2022 Agreement with DCSB. [15] Notwithstanding the August 2022 Agreement and the Corporate Guarantee, DCSB had allegedly been constantly failing to fulfil its obligations to make payment for the certified sums to the Plaintiff where DCSB and the Plaintiff have to enter into several agreements to defer the payments for the interim certificates. [16] On 4.1.2023, pursuant to the proposal by DCSB for another repayment schedule of the outstanding sum due and payable, the 6 Plaintiff and DCSB entered into an agreement to provide for a revised repayment schedule (“January 2023 Agreement”). [17] Again, DCSB had allegedly failed, refuse and/or neglected to pay the remaining outstanding sum due and owing under Interim Certificated No. 17(F1) (which was not paid in full) to No. 21 by way of Instalment Payment No. 5A for a sum of RM60,690,409.12 and Instalment Payment No. 5B for a sum of RM19,015,869.30 both by 4.4.2023 as per the January 2023 Agreement. [18] Pursuant to Clause 2.2(a) of the January 2023 Agreement, in the event DCSB has failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the Plaintiff any part of the Instalment payment Schedule under the January 2023 Agreement. [19] Pursuant to Clause 2.2(a) of the January 2023 Agreement, in the event DCSB has failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the Plaintiff any part of the Instalment Payment Schedule under the January 2023 Agreement, the right of the Plaintiff to claim the outstanding sum under Interim Certificates No. 17(R1) (which is not paid in full) to No. 21 shall be reverted the original due dates under the Main Contract. [20] Additionally, it is contended that the Plaintiff is also entitled to late payment interest pursuant to Clause 30.17 of the PAM Contract 2006 (Conditions of Contract) in relation to the Interim Certificate No. 2 until part of the payment made for Interim Certificate No. 17(R1). [21] In this regard, the plaintiff issued a written notice dated 3.4.2023 to DCSB to claim for late payment interest pursuant to Clause 30.17 of 7 PAM Contract 2006 (Conditions of Contract) in respect of the late payment by DCSB. [22] The calculation of the late payment interest in respect of Interim Certificates NO. 17(R1) (which was not paid in full) to No. 24 is allaged to start from the original due date and continue to run until full payment of the outstanding sum from DCSB. [23] On 19.4.2023, the Plaintiff has determined its own employment under the Contracts with DCSB in view of the breach committed by DCSB. [24] As of the date of determination, it is alleged that the total sums certified under Interim Certificates No. 17(R1) (part payment) to No. 24 (including late payment interests) as well as the late payment interest for late payment in respect of certified sums under Interim Certificates No. 2 to No. 17(R1) (part payment) remain outstanding; [25] By way of a Notice of Demand dated 25.4.2023 issued by the Plaintiff’s solicitors to DCSB, the Plaintiff demanded the total outstanding sum of RM102,076,171.93 to be paid within seven (7) days from the date of the said Notice of Demand. [26] DCSB has allegedly failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the total outstanding sum within the period specified. [27] Subsequently, the Plaintiff’s solicitors issued, on behalf of the Plaintiff, a Notice of Demand dated 3.5.2023 to the Defendant, in the capacity of the Corporate Guarantor, to demand for the payment of the total 8 outstanding sum RM102,076,171.93 within seven (7) days from the date of the said Notice of Demand. [28] However, the Defendant has allegedly failed, refuse, and/or neglected to comply its obligations as a Corporate Guarantor and did not make any payment to the Plaintiff as per the Corporate Guarantee which led to the filing of the present court action by the Plaintiff. [29] The Defendant has now filed a stay application to stay the present court action commenced by the Plaintiff. Court’s Findings The Law [30] The law on a stay of proceedings pending arbitration against non- parties is that of the threshold of rare and compelling circumstances which was applied by Komathy Suppiah J (as she then was) in the case of Jacob and Toralf Consulting Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Siemens Industry Software GmbH & Co And Ors [2013] 1 LNS 914 where the learned judge reasoned that it was consistent with a fundamental rule that a plaintiff was not only entitled but required to prosecute his claim in court expeditiously and proceed with trial, which was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal. [31] In coming to a decision on whether to grant a stay of proceedings pending arbitration against non-parties, I have also took into account Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee & Another Appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] MLJU 993 where it was held by the Court of Appeal that a 9 myriad of factors was to be considered by the Court to achieve a just result. Substantive Issues [32] This Court has thus examined the Statement of Claim and the cause of action in the Suit and noted inter alia as follows: - a. The Defendant is the holding company of one Damai City Sdn Bhd (“Damai City”) b. Damai City is the developer of the project known as the 8 Conlay Project (“Project”) c. The Plaintiff had by way of a Letter of Award dated 9.11.2020 (“LA”) been appointed by Damai City as the main contractor for the Project and the various letters of amendments thereto as well as a Supplementary Agreement on 20.5.2022 between the Plaintiff and Damai City (Contract Documents) d. the Plaintiff alleges that there is an outstanding sum of RM102,076,171 not paid by Damai City e. the claim against the Defendant is premised on the failure of the Defendant to honour its obligations under the Corporate Guarantee f. and that the relief claimed against the Defendant therein under was, amongst others, the sum of RM93,393,742.77, plus various late payment interest [33] I have also perused the Notice of Arbitration dated 28.4.2023 (“NOA 28.4.2023”) in exhibit D6 of enclosure 8 which was issued by Damai City to the Plaintiff and find 10 i. it refers to the same Project and Contract Documents ii. an allegation that the Plaintiff had reneged on the Supplementary Agreement and pressured Damai City on the suspension of works by issuing a Notice of Default iii. the various disputes arising between Damai City and the Plaintiff following from the Notice of Determination dated 19.4.2023 iv. Damai City were seeking from the Plaintiff, amongst others, the costs incurred or to be incurred in completing the Project amounting to additional costs of RM122,461,147.49, rectification costs of RM 10,500,000 and finance charges of RM15,000,000 plus loss of profit and loss of expenses [34] I have also found that in the Notice of Arbitration dated 11.5.2023 (“NOA 11.5.2023”) issued by the Plaintiff to Damai City, at exhibit D- 8 of enclosure 8, the Plaintiff inter alia: i. challenges the NOA 28.4.2023 as being issued under the wrong arbitration rules ii. contends that Damai City’s Notice of Determination on 19.4.2023 as being wrongful iii. refers to the dispute with regards the alleged failure of Damai City to pay the Plaintiff outstanding sums certified under Interim Certificates no.13 (R1) and outstanding late payment interest iv. claims that Damai City had purportedly acted to prevent the Plaintiff from exercising its post determination rights v. claims for the reliefs of the sums of amongst others for outstanding sums owed, late interest thereto, the retention sum, 11 unpaid and uncertified work executed including variation works, materials ordered, loss and expense, demobilisation costs, damages, loss of use, loss of profit and general damages [35] I have also perused the Corporate Guarantee at exhibit D-4 of enclosure 7, in coming to my decision and observed that prima facie, on the face of the document itself, the Corporate Guarantee speaks of the same being an irrevocable and unconditional guarantee. I must however emphasise in making this Court’s decision herein, the Court is not expected to make a detailed and minute examination of the documents as the same is a matter to be considered in the hearing of the Suit itself. See JAKS Resources Bhd v Star Media Group Bhd and other appeals [2023] 6 MLJ 114. [36] From my examination of the above documents, I hold, at least at this juncture, that the Suit, although premised on the Project, is a matter relating to the Corporate Guarantee which is an independent liability of the Defendant and thus distinct from the facts or dispute in the Arbitration. [37] It is also clear that the parties in this Suit are not identical to that in both the Arbitration proceedings as in the latter only the Plaintiff and DCSB are involved whereas in the suit herein, DCSB is not a party to the said Suit. [38] It is also my finding that the witnesses in each of the matters will not necessarily be identical as in the Suit the witnesses will testify on the issue of the Corporate Guarantee whereas the witnesses in the Arbitration proceedings will have to testify on the issue of the dispute 12 regarding the alleged breach of Contract and whatever other documents between the Plaintiff and DCSB as well as whether there are any monies owed to DCSB or the Plaintiff as a result thereof. [39] The reliefs claimed against the Defendant herein the Suit and DCSB in the Arbitration proceedings are not similar as identified above and which, at the risk of repetition, again I state are as follow: - a) DCSB is seeking against the Plaintiff in the NOA 28.4.2023, amongst others, the costs incurred or to be incurred in completing the Project amounting to additional costs of RM122,461,147.49, rectification costs of RM10,500,000 and finance charges of RM15,000,000 plus loss of profit and loss of expenses b) the Plaintiff in NOA 11.5.2023 is claiming against DCSB, the reliefs for the sums of amongst others for outstanding sums owed, late interest thereto, the retention sum, unpaid and uncertified work executed including variation works, materials ordered, loss and expense, demobilisation costs, damages, loss of use, loss of profit and general damages c) whereas the relief claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant herein under the Corporate Guarantee is amongst others, the sum of RM93,393,742.77, plus various late payment interest [40] I hold that there can be no issue of double recovery as the remedies claimed are indeed separate and distinct and more importantly no order has been made in the Suit or the Arbitration proceedings as to the payments to be made at this juncture. In any event, the parties are free to raise this issue subsequently at the trial of the Suit or either 13 of the Arbitration proceedings in order for the Court or the Tribunal, as the case maybe, as an issue to be considered and finally determined at the appropriate forum. [41] Thus, I find no overlapping issues especially since the cause of action against the Defendant here is one based on the alleged breach of the Corporate Guarantee whilst the cause of action in both the Arbitration proceedings relates to inter alia various disputes arising between DCSB and the Plaintiff flows from the Notice of Determination dated 19.4.2023 and accordingly there can be no risk of inconsistent findings. It is therefore in my view, different subject matters which will eventually be determined in the Suit as opposed to the Arbitration proceedings. [42] I am also, with respect, of the view that the contentions of issue estoppel and res judicata raised by the Defendant are not tenable and misconceived as they can be raised in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time depending on whether the Court or the Tribunal would have determined any issue or matter where the aforesaid contentions can then be brought up for consideration and a decision be made on the same. [43] All of the above contentions raised by the Defendant are, with respect, not a rare or compelling circumstance in which this Court holds can support an application for a stay of the proceedings. [44] Based on all of my reasons above, I respectfully hold that there will be not be any issue that it will be oppressive for the Defendant to answer the allegations raised by the Plaintiff in the Suit and my 14 rejection of the issue of interest of justice as contended by the Defendant. [45] Based on Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee & Anor appeal [2016] 5 CLJ 299, the Court of Appeal in an illuminating judgment delivered by Nallini Pathmanathan JCA (as Her Lady ship then was) in determining where a stay of proceedings ought to be granted held as follows: - “[49] Insofar as Tey and Ooi are concerned, as they are not parties to the arbitration agreement, s. 10 of the AA does not come into play. The court's power to grant a stay is derived from its inherent power to stay court proceedings pending arbitration in the interests of the justice of the case. Therefore, the sole issue for consideration is whether the discretion ought to be exercised to allow a stay as sought by Tey and Ooi or to refuse such a stay as submitted by Protasco. At this appellate stage, the question before us is whether the learned judge exercised his discretion correctly in determining that a stay pending arbitration should be granted in respect of Protasco's claims against Tey and Ooi. [50] In Tomolugen, the Singapore Court of Appeal outlined the options available to a Singapore court when faced with court proceedings against non-parties, when there was a related arbitration. Those options afford a logical, and with respect, well- summarised series of choices available to a court faced with such an issue. The options as set out in Tomolugen and adopted here are: (a) to stay the whole of the court proceedings, including those against the non-parties or third parties to the arbitration 15 proceedings, pending the determination of the arbitration. In other words, that the arbitration proceeds first, followed by the court proceedings. That was the option adopted by the learned judge of the High Court, and the option preferred by Tey and Ooi; (b) to stay the court proceedings to the extent required by s. 10 of the AA, but on condition that the arbitration proceeds only after the resolution of the remaining court proceedings. This means in effect that the court proceedings against the third parties or non-parties not caught by the arbitration agreement would be heard and determined first, followed by the arbitration proceedings. This is the preferred option of Protasco, as we understand it; (c) To stay the court proceedings under s. 10 in relation to the parties to the arbitration agreement, namely Protasco and PT ASU, and allow the remaining court proceedings against Tey and Ooi to proceed concurrently or in parallel. This means in effect that the arbitration and court proceedings would occur concurrently; (d) To allow a stay of the court proceedings on certain issues, while allowing other issues to be concurrently determined by the court and in arbitration. (For example, breach of contract to be stayed in court proceedings and heard by way of arbitration, while concurrently conspiracy to defraud/injure, lifting of the corporate veil, breach of fiduciary duty etc to be heard concurrently by the court). [51] In deciding on these options, it is necessary to take into consideration and weigh up several competing factors relating to both the arbitration and the court proceedings, including: (i) The overlap in parties in the proceedings and the arbitration - namely Protasco and PT ASU; 16 (ii) The overlap of the issues that will be raised in the arbitration. Here the arbitration has not commenced. In the absence of any material on this subject we surmise that the dispute or difference arising between Protasco and PT ASU relates to a conspiracy to defraud/injure, and breach of contract. The former, namely the cause of action premised on conspiracy to defraud or to injure will require ventilation, during the arbitration proceedings, of Tey and Ooi's alleged engineering and implementation of the conspiracy; (iii) The cause of action in breach of contract will also, to a considerable extent, touch on the facts relating to the parts played in this venture by Tey, Ooi and Dato' Chong as well as both parties' agents and/or nominees. To that extent there is considerable overlap in the factual matrix giving rise to the breach of contract and the conspiracy to injure/defraud; (iv) The principal witnesses for the primary parties in the arbitration namely Protasco and PT ASU may be the same actors, namely Tey, Ooi, and Dato' Chong. In order to establish these causes of action, the evidence of these persons will be necessary to establish the basic factual matrix in order to determine whether these causes of action are made out or not; (v) The reliefs sought also bear some similarity save for the quantum claimed, namely USD22 million vis a vis PT ASU in the arbitration, and USD27 million in the court proceedings against Tey and Ooi (in view of the shareholder's advance). There is also overlap in terms of the monies being held by PT ASU and/or Tey and Ooi as constructive trustees for Protasco.” [46] Guided by the principles enunciated in Protasco Bhd (supra) , I hold that the only common factors which might exists in the Suit and the 17 Arbitration proceedings are the possible initial factual matrix, which although may relate to the same Project matter, will however devolve into different causes of action i.e in the Suit ,the issue of the liability under the Corporate Guarantee issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as opposed to the Arbitration proceedings where the issue will be of the dispute between the Plaintiff and DCSB on the outstanding sum of RM102,076,171 allegedly not paid by DCSB for Works done in the Project. [47] With respect, any arguments raised by the Defendant which goes to the merits of the case in the Suit herein such as allegations of economic threats, inability to perform contractual obligations due to the Covid-19 pandemic etc which have been contended by the Defendant goes to the merits of the Suit and does not constitute special circumstances. [48] Thus, after due and careful consideration of the issues, facts and causes of action as well as weighing the several competing factors relating to both the Arbitration and the Suit, I do hold that the Suit should not be stayed and that the Arbitration and Suit herein can occur concurrently as the right to sue the Defendant in the suit and either DCSB and the Plaintiff in the Arbitration Proceedings i.e under NOA 28.4.2023 and/or NOA 11.5.2023, as the case maybe, herein are based on separate contractual obligations . [49] I hereby dismiss Enclosure 6 herein with costs. Dated: 11th day of September 2023 18 NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Allen Cheng Peng Han and Sandhya Saravanan [Messrs Azman Davidson & Co.] COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: Foo Joon Liang and Kho Jia Yuan [Messrs Gan Partnership]

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22IP-64-10/2021

PLAINTIF 1. ) Sika AG 2. ) Sika Technology AG 3. ) Sika Kimia Sdn. Bhd. DEFENDAN Nippon Paint (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

Claims for damages and other relief for:(i) infringement of Trademark (ii) passing off;(iii) copyright infringement; and(iv) unlawful interference with trade.Claim dismissed.

17/01/2024

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dfb32afd-efdf-47ee-9ec1-ba6b54d7a2a2&Inline=true

17/01/2024 10:11:43 WA-22IP-64-10/2021 Kand. 136 S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /Sqz39/v7keewbprVNeiog **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-45A-45-12/2020

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH TAN YI HONG

Criminal Law - offence of drug trafficking - drugs found in the car - absence of proof of mens rea possession - non-calling of material witness from whom police statement recorded - car accessible not only to accused - court unable to invoke presumption of trafficking pursuant to section 37 (da) DDA 1952 - accused acquitted and discharged of the charge at the end of case of prosecution.

17/01/2024

YA Tuan Muniandy a/l Kannyappan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=932fdd7c-9926-4698-8ec3-833c2b4d57dd&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR CRIMINAL TRIAL NO: WA-45A-45-12/2020 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND TAN YI HONG (IC NO. 001105-10-0599) 17/01/2024 00:29:18 WA-45A-45-12/2020 Kand. 107 S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT Preface [1] The accused, Tan Yi Hong in this case was acquitted and discharged of the charge for an offence of drug trafficking on 10.8.2023. Brief grounds of judgment were read out in open court. I had informed parties, if an appeal is lodged to the Court of Appeal, a full written judgment of this court would be rendered, which is the following. [2] The accused stood charged for an offence of drug trafficking pursuant to section 39B (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA/Act 234). Evidence tendered by prosecution [3] The prosecution had adduced evidence via its witnesses. The crucial ones are the member of the raiding or search party comprising PW3 and PW4, who had testified: • They had ambushed the accused who was inside the car PNJ 3918 at a car park at Condominium Kiara East, off Jalan Ipoh, Batu 5, Kuala Lumpur. • He was alone inside the car on the driver’s seat. S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 • They had opened the driver’s seat door and ejected the accused from the seat. • Upon ambush, he was found with P15 and P31. • It was dangerous drugs, referred to as MDMA weighing 1130.99 grams. Those were pills. It was confirmed by the chemist PW2 via report P13. [4] P15 was found inside a rose gold bag with label “Duria”, kept on the floor of the front passenger side of the car. On the other hand, P31 was found inside the glove compartment, which was kept in the form of a package wrapped in white and orange “poslaju” plastic bag. Burden of proof [5] Pursuant to section 180 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), at the end of the case of prosecution, it is bounden duty of the prosecution to make out a prima facie case against the accused. In that respect, it has to adduce: • Credible evidence. • Proving each ingredient of the offence of trafficking of dangerous drug. • Which if not rebutted or explained by the accused, would warrant a conviction. S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [6] When deciding on the proof tendered by prosecution, this court has to embark on a maximum evaluation of the evidence proffered, being: • Positive evaluation of the credibility and reliability of all the evidence adduced. • To determine if the ingredients of the offence under section 39B(1)(a) DDA have been established. • Any reasonable doubt would be resolved in favor of the accused, thus entitling no prima facie case proven against him. Evaluation [7] Perusing and evaluating the evidence adduced via prosecution witnesses there has been proof of the following: • The accused was seated on the driver’s seat inside the car in question at time of arrest and search. • No one else was found inside the car. • P15 and P31 were found inside the car. P15 was in a bag on the floor of the front passenger side of the car whereas P31 was inside the glove compartment. • The car was registered in the name of PW5, who is sister to the accused. S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 • The car was used by all and sundry, including the accused, his sister PW5 and another sister, mother and also workers at the restaurant where the accused works. • The investigation officer of the case, SP6, has confirmed in her testimony, she could not negate the possibility that other persons had access to the car at the material time. • On top of that another individual by the name of Lee Siew Heng who is referred to as Ah Heng also handles the car. He has a tyre shop nearby the restaurant and familiarly known to the family of the accused. • At point of arrest, accused was in a state of fright, simply because he was accosted by a group of policemen who were with plain clothes and some were armed. • After arrest, P15 and P31 were seized from the car, and as it was found inside the car with the accused, thus he was also arrested. • On chemical analysis, P15 and P31 were concluded to be dangerous drugs, namely MDMA which were in the form of pills. [8] Evidence available is only to that extent. The other end of proof is to be formed by way of circumstances and inferences, which must point irresistibly to the accused who was charged for trafficking of the said dangerous drugs. S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 The Law [9] Trafficking of dangerous drugs is preceded by possession of the same. Possession under the DDA, is not a strict liability offence, but necessitates proof by the prosecution of the actus reus and mens rea of the accused. [10] It is trite, the prosecution has to afford proof that the accused was in possession of P15 and P31 with knowledge of its existence and nature as containing dangerous drugs. It is also settled law, now by virtue of the apex Court decision in the case of Muhammad Hassan v PP (1998) 2 CLJ 170, this court has to make an affirmative finding of possession before invoking the presumption of trafficking pursuant to section 37 (da) DDA, which of course is triggered by sheer weight of the dangerous drugs in the possession of the accused. The prosecution too, holds the bounden duty to adduce direct evidence of possession of the dangerous drugs by the accused, as it cannot turn to the aid of presumed possession pursuant to section 37 (d) DDA and thereafter to also invite the court to invoke the presumption of trafficking as it offends the rule against double presumption. In fact, the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) appearing for prosecution of the accused had vouched via her opening statement P3, that the prosecution intends to prove its case S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 by proving direct possession and thereafter rely on the presumption of trafficking under section 37 (da) DDA. [11] Hence, the pivotal question, is there credible evidence proffered by the prosecution, that the accused knew of P15 and P31 containing dangerous drugs, albeit it being found inside the car, to iterate, P15 on the floor of the front passenger side of the car and P31 inside the glove compartment. [12] The prosecution’s only theory of its case is on the conduct of the accused when he was accosted by the search party showing he was in a state of fright. His conduct is claimed to be a relevant fact pursuant to section 8 (2) of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA/Act 56). Evidence of such a nature, does not take the prosecution any further to state that it had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew he was carrying or transporting drugs inside the car driven by him with the intent to traffic the same. The conduct spoken of is to be expected of the accused who was confronted with many individuals who were policemen in plainclothes and some armed. Obviously, he would have gotten into a state of panic, with arms aimed at him, as his life was at stake and he has nowhere to run, since they were in close proximity to him. Objectively, that piece of S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 evidence alone does not render proof that the accused had knowledge of the content of P15 and P31, as dangerous drugs. [13] Aside that, there is also no other evidence forthcoming from the prosecution pin-pointing to possession of P15 and P31 with the requisite knowledge for this court to conclude affirmatively, that the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, bereft of that this court is not in a position to invoke the presumption of trafficking of the said drugs. [14] Absence of evidence of knowledge is also fortified by circumstance of the case, to wit, witness for the prosecution PW5 (sister of the accused) who had testified positively the car in question was not only driven by the accused but by many others including her, as well as their mother and workers at the restaurant, and also an individual by the name of Ah Heng. [15] To crown it up, the said individual is not a fictitious character, but a real person from whom a police statement was recorded, as confirmed by investigation officer of this case PW6. She had confirmed it was recorded with the express purpose of determining his involvement with the drugs. That piece of evidence stays as it is, with no further amplification. Ah Heng was not called as a prosecution witness nor made available for cross-examination or S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 even offered to the defence, if they wish to call him to testify, if defence is ordered to be entered by the accused by this court. Hence, the usual query, why is Ah Heng concealed from rendering his testimony in court? It would in law, give rise to the invocation of an adverse inference pursuant to section 114 (g) EA, and if he is produced in court to testify, he may proffer unfavorable evidence to the prosecution. Moreover, the defence is also prevented from cross-examining him on a material issue, touching on the guilt of the accused person. Although, the prosecution holds the prosecutorial discretion to call witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the case of the prosecution is based, whether the effect of their testimony is for or against the prosecution, (See: Seneviratne v R (1936) 3 AER 36, referred to in the case of Ti Chuee Hiang v PP (1995) 2 MLJ 433) it was also held by the apex Court in the case of Ti Chuee Hiang v PP that the most basic limitation upon prosecutorial discretion in the presentation of a case is that it also has a duty to call all the necessary witnesses to establish proof against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and if, in the exercise of its discretion, it fails to fulfil this obligation which is nothing less than a statutory duty, the accused must be acquitted. With non-calling of Ah Heng, there is definitely a gap in the narrative S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 of the prosecution case, as he had driven the car in which the impugned drugs were found. [16] Pursuant to the leading authority on the law of possession of incriminating articles, including dangerous drug, Chan Pean Leon v PP (1956) MLJ 237, the bag found at the floor on the passenger side of the motor car which was driven by the accused person, could be inferred to be in the possession of the accused as he is so situated with respect to it. But is he in a position to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons who has access to the car, including his sister SP5, mother and his co-workers at the restaurant. SP5 has reiterated forcefully that she uses the car, her sister, mother too, as well as the co-workers at the restaurant and another individual Ah Heng. On top of that it is also the evidence of SP5 that the car keys were left in the house where it was accessible to her family members and left openly at the restaurant where it was accessible to her family members as well as the staff. It was also her testimony that Ah Heng, who was their childhood friend and worked at the tyre shop next to their family’s restaurant, would also come into the restaurant to borrow the car. The testimony of SP5 remained unrebutted by the prosecution, thus deemed accepted on the material facts it entails. Therefore, with accessibility of the car to S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 all and sundry, he cannot be presumed to deal with P15 and P31 as an owner to the exclusion of all others who also have access to the car, in case of need. Findings [17] This court is also unable to make an affirmative finding of possession, as the accused was not seen handling the bag P10 or the package found inside the glove compartment P31, simply because the inferential evidence is that the items does not belong to him and the car is accessible to all and sundry and not to him alone. The prosecution had latched on its case to the conduct of the accused upon arrest and raid, when he was confronted and accosted by a group of policemen who were with plain clothes and some armed. Being alone in the car, at the basement car park of the condominium where the accused resides, it is definitely tormenting and befitting for the accused to behave in such a manner, i.e. to be panic and attempting to flee as his life was at stake since the policemen were armed. Therefore, conduct of the accused is not concomitant with an incriminating behavior but only his natural impulse and reflex action to flee the scene. In law too, his conduct does not tantamount to be a relevant fact for consideration by this court pursuant to section 8 (2) EA, as it was on all fours neutral. S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [18] Alluding to the above, denial of knowledge by the accused of the content of the bag P10 as well as the package P31 is believable, as the contents were not visible to the naked eye and it has to be accorded due weight concomitant with his innocence. Albeit, such assertions are normal on the part of an accused person who is charged with an offence of drug trafficking, seemingly a common place defence, but all the same, it cannot be brushed aside willy- nilly but ought to be given its appropriate consideration in accord with the facts and circumstance of the case. Therefore, in the absence of other independent or inferential evidence implicating the accused with knowledge on the existence, content and nature of the substances found in P10 and P31, the evidence adduced by prosecution does not incriminate the accused in any manner whatsoever, especially so to pin him with the serious charge of drug trafficking, which is an offence pursuant to section 39B (1) (a) DDA. The notion that drug peddlers could escape liability by ensuring that any drugs coming into their possession are sealed in opaque wrappings, unseen by the naked eye could not be applied willy-nilly too, as there has also to be cogent and tangible evidence proffered by the prosecution be it direct or circumstantial or inferential to connect the accused with the impugned drugs. As otherwise, the trial judge would be placed in a much unfavorable position to reject S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 such defence advanced by the accused outrightly without according it a judicial thought to determine if by virtue of the defence raised, a reasonable doubt is also raised by the accused person. In the present case, the doubt pertains to possession of the impugned drugs, where the law expects mens rea possession and not possession simpliciter, as possession of drugs is not a strict liability offence but an offence which necessitates guilty intent on the part of the accused when he was found in possession of the dangerous drugs with intent to traffic the same. The presumption available under the law only serves as an aid to the prosecution to prove its case, and it is never the case where the prosecution is relieved from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing credible and believable evidence that the accused in this case was in possession of P10 and P31 with knowledge that its contents are dangerous drugs. [19] Although the law in this realm has developed in such a fashion, where evidence of finger prints on the incriminating item or impugned drugs only serves to be corroborative and the absence of which does not automatically lead to an acquittal of the accused from the charge of drug trafficking, but availability of such tangible evidence would be utterly useful for a case like the present where S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 aside conduct of the accused which is highly questionable, if evidence of his finger print is available, it would pin him down to connect him with the impugned drugs allegedly in his possession on the face of the circumstance where the car in which the said drugs were found is accessible not only to the accused, but also to the prosecution witness SP5, her sister, their mother and also co- workers who assist the accused and his family in a restaurant business. Alas! in the present case, SP6 confirmed the fingerprints result were negative. A further twist is the presence of Ah Heng in the debacle which renders it further a mystery as to in whose mens rea possession was the impugned drugs, which were found in the car driven by the accused. [20] In sum total, the law exhibits, possession has two elements: (i) Animus i.e. intention or mental element and (ii) Possidendi i.e. actual possession or physical element. Therefore, possession must be conscious and not merely the physical presence of the accused in proximity to the object. Onus of proof is on the prosecution to establish conscious possession. (See: Wahib Basha (1961) 1 Cr LJ 533 (Mad)) But, in the present case, it is lacking as the prosecution had only established the bag P10 and the package P31 were inside the car which was driven by the S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 accused at the material time of arrest and raid, and nothing more. Thus, proximity of the accused is only to the bag P10 and package P31 and never he knew, according to the evidence adduced, that it contained dangerous drugs. [21] On the issue of knowledge to establish possession the words of Lord Wilberforce in the case of Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) 2 AER 356 at page 394, resonates, where the Law Lord had decided in all such cases, the starting point will be that the accused had physical control of something – a package, a bottle, a container – found to contain the substance. This is evidence – generally strong evidence of possession. It calls for an explanation. The explanation will be heard and the jury (as in England) must decide whether there is genuine ignorance of the presence of the substance, or such an acceptance of the package with all that it might contain, or with opportunity to ascertain what it did contain or such guilty knowledge with regard to it as to make up the statutory possession. Unfortunately, the lapse of the prosecution in this case, is that there is no hard or tangible evidence proffered or adduced by the prosecution demonstrating that the accused person ought to know of the substance contained in P10 and P31 which is not visible by the naked eye. Hence, before the accused is S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 ordered by this court to explain, it is bounden duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was having mens rea possession of the dangerous drugs and he was fully aware of it being contraband and incriminating, for this court to arrive at an affirmative finding of possession, and thereafter invoking the presumption of trafficking pursuant to section 37 (da) DDA. The present case of the accused does not befit the philosophy “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise”, as it is not a case where according to the evidence adduced, he had shut his eye to the obvious because he doesn’t want to know the content of P10 and P31. It is a case where the car which does not belong to him but driven by him, owned and used by his sister SP5, their mother and other co-workers of their restaurant and also that it was fully accessible to all and sundry, including a real individual Ah Heng, who did not pop-up mysteriously but made known to the investigation officer of the case SP6, but who did not take any further progressive action in order to determine possession of the impugned drugs or chose not to reveal it to this court, thus leaving an abyss in the case of the prosecution on the involvement of the accused with the impugned drugs. I have to be mindful of the fact that the accused was caught in a circumstance where he was leaving his place of abode ordinarily without anything untoward but S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 incidentally confronted and accosted by a group of policemen. As the car was used by all and sundry, including him, it was also natural to expect him to drive the car without checking what is inside it. Therefore, in this case, ignorance of knowledge of the impugned drugs serves to be a total defence available to him to the charge of drug trafficking lumbered against him and there is no reason for this court, by virtue of the evidence available, reason to suspect the said defence raised by the accused. It is not a case of ignorance simpliciter, but coupled with the fact of accessibility of the car to all and sundry; testimony of SP5; testimony of SP6 the investigation officer who was callous on the existence of an individual Ah Heng who had also used the car, only goes to prove that the defence raised by the accused is with basis. Conclusion [22] In sum total, what is left at the end of the case of prosecution is only evidence of physical proximity of P15 and P31 to the accused without any evidence showing accused had knowledge as to the contents of the same which is a pre-requisite to conscious possession of the impugned dangerous drugs. There is also no evidence of handling by the accused of the said dangerous drugs. S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Mere possession of P15 and P31, without proof of knowledge is not a crime. (See: Ling Haw Chen v PP (2015) 5 MLJ 164). [23] Therefore, upon embarking on a maximum evaluation of the evidence led by the prosecution, which involves an assessment of the credibility of all prosecution witnesses who had testified in examination in chief by the DPP and cross-examined by the defence counsel representing the accused person (See: Balachandran v PP (2005) 2 MLJ 302; PP v Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar (2006) 1 CLJ 457), in order to decide if the prosecution had been successful in establishing a prima facie case against the accused, this court finds that the prosecution had been unsuccessful in proving a prima facie case against the accused. Furthermore, as the evidence led by the prosecution admits of two or more inferences, the one in favor of the accused person would prevail and it is the duty of this court to also draw the inference favorable to him. (See: Tai Chai Keh v PP (1948) 1 LNS 122). [24] In the premise, an order of acquittal and discharge is the way forward. Therefore, the accused Tan Yi Hong is acquitted and discharged of the charge against him for an offence under section 39B (1) (a) DDA without him having to defend himself. Accused acquitted and discharged at the end of case of prosecution. S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Dated 17 January 2024 SGD Muniandy Kannyappan High Court 2, Kuala Lumpur. DPP Zaileen Nadia Zubir for prosecution. Defence Counsel Gobind Singh Deo together with Tiara Katrina Fuad of Messrs. Gobind Singh Deo & Co for the accused person. S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 S/N fN0vkyaZmEaOw4M8K01X3Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-41LB-25-07/2023

PERAYU SHEILA SHARON A/P STEVEN KUMAR RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

rayuan - keputusan majistret memberi perintah DNAA - responden buat permohonan DNAA atas alasan terdapat kesilapan pendaftaran kes oleh pegawai penyiasat - tiada maklumat lanjut berkenaan kesilapan daftar - sama ada majistret khilaf dengan tidak guna pakai seksyen 254(1) KTJ - seksyen 173(1) KTJ serta perkara 145(3) perlembagaan persekutuan - tiada permohonan tegas serta maklumat sama ada pendakwaan berniat untuk mendakwa semula - tiada sebarang maklumat sama ada pendakwaan berniat untuk mendakwa semula - tiada sebarang Pertuduhan dikemukakan - tiada pengakuan diambil oleh majistret - tiada bantahan oleh responden di peringkat rayuan - perintah DAA diberikan

17/01/2024

YA Dato' Norsharidah Binti Awang

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4704175b-3e7f-4c18-b7a9-34e33d91b89a&Inline=true

17/01/2024 14:33:01 BA-41LB-25-07/2023 Kand. 17 S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WxcER38GEy3qTTjPZG4mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BA—d1LB—25—07/2023 Kand. 17 I I/m/2014 ,4 22 m MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SHAH ALAM Dl DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL ENSAN, MALAYSIA RAVIJAN JEMAVAH No. EA41LB-25—07I2023 ANTARA SHEILA SHARON AIF STEVEN KIJIIIAR PERAVU (Na KIP. aaoa1s—14.534o) DAN PENDAKWA RAVA RESPONDEN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN I. FENDAHULUAN [1] lm adalah nayuan Iemadap kepumsan Majistret‘ Mahkarmh Mapslret .11 Smayang pada 25 Jun 2u2:s Majisvel Isiah memmuskan agar Penman Lepas Tanpa Bebas Inmw lerhadap Perayu alas permormnan oleh Respundem Mahkamah VII (eIah pada 31 Oklcbev 2023 membenarkan rayuan Farayu dengan menukar Pennulh Lepas Tsnna Eebas (DNAA) kepada Pamnlah Pelepasan Tenumlah Kepada Pembebasan (DAM salalah pihak Rspunden menyalakan llada hantahan Iefhadap rayuan Perayu. Pihak Respondan Iidak belpuashali lerhadap kepulusan (ersshul Ialu membuat rayuan. sw w»:Ew:Ia43Ey:qI'TII=zG4m§ mm Sum M... WW be used M mm u. nIWIruIV|Y mm; “Mm. VII muwa WMI II. PERTUDUHAN [21 Tarluduh [Per-ayu) dalam Kes um lslan a-mum alas perluduhan sepsrfi benkul: ‘Bahawa kamu Fade 15/as/2023 ‘am lebm kurang 125 (engahan banempal dw No.8, Jadan s1 «/1. Taman Sn Gombak, D. da\am Daerah Gombak, Di dmam Negsn Smangor Dalul Ehsan danger! nial umuk menmuhkan mama bevk dengan menghma pangkal dan kedudukan dalam pasukarl nah: ks alas Dsnama: L/Kp\ RF/197623 Abdul Am Farhan hm Amm Flazak. man yang damikian kamu man mavakukan aam kesa!ahan di bavmh seksysn 509 Kanun Keseksaan Hukuman. Jwka mam: kesa\ahan holsh diseksa dengan penjam selama tempuh yang boxer: sampaw lima vamm alau dengan denda atau denyan kedua- duarwa ' III. FAKTA KES [31 Fakta kes auaxan sebayaimana di perenggsn 2 hingga 5 Ranked Rayuan Jim 2. [4] Tenuduh dalam kes im lelah diluduh dx bawah sam penudunan seksyen 509 Kanun Keseksaan. [5] Pada 25 Jun 2023, ssbemm panudunan tersebul mnacakan kepada Iefluduh, Dihak Dendakwaan man mambual aw wxzzfiaaeiylqmfizedm “V ‘ "‘ " -ma Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm a. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm with, arms postponement was obtained and wrthln a rsasanabls time. She chose no! In be forceful In her application, but rather feeble when she merely informed the coun‘ 'F'sndakwssn my xiada saksi mm, pehon Sam lallkh skllrlfika dlizlnkan", She did not /mplors the com, on attempts made ar havmg made lo locate the prcsecunbn witnesses scones! and cnnfinua wilh the case ofprosscullnn, In ava)-1 further delay, No material was placed before the man as 10 whereabouts of me witnesses and why they were absent re: Irlsl.’ [401 Perayu mendakwa bahawa siluasi yang sama borer. dxapllkasrkan tfl dalam KS5 W apabfla pwhak Pendakwaan msnyerahkan kepada Mahkamah unmk membual kapulusan [41] Ferayu sekali wagi manyatakan dw dalam hujahannya banawa Fendakwsan max msmbenkan maklumat sama ada Pendakwaan nemiac umuk mendakwa samula Perayu [42] Perayu Jugs msnyatakan oanawa Majwstret sepamlnya |uru| mempemmbangkan banlahan Pemyu Iemadap Perinlah DNAA yang dwpohon Pendakwaan Inl ksrans isnya akan mengakwbmkan kes Perayu mamam lergantung unpa kepasllan sama ads Perayu akan didakwa semma alau udak. [43] Alasan yang dikemukakan oleh Pandskwaan Udak cukup umuk membualkan kes Inl umenkan Perinlah DNAA sw wmzfiaaeiylqflnfizadm "°' “ °' " ‘Nuns smm ...nn.Mm be used M my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG Wm! VI. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [44] Adalah Mas di dalam kes im bahiwa satu psndakwaan Vam telahpun dibual (emadap Perayu Ialtu Kas bsmombar 5032 9416/2023 Rum kepada huiahan Responden dw perenggan 11, [alas dmyatakan number kes dengan penuduhan yang baru [45] Rujuk juga kspads Nasan Pengnakwman Majwslrsk dx Rekud Rayuan Jma 1(a). pads peranggarl 12 Majiswez menymakan bahawa paaa ham yang sama Pendamaan lelah menemskan penuduhan be was ferluduh dx bawah number kas baharu iaitu BD-82-9-06/2023. [46] Oleh nu mak wujud isu bahawa Perayu diganlung dengan Penman DNAA kerane kas yang sama Ie\ah mperlmiuhkan lerhadap Psrayu. [47] Bag: isu bahawa sama ada Mansneuaxnn knuavaangan uaak mengguna pakai seksyen 254(1) Kamm Prasedur Jenayah Mahkamah nn rnammk kepada Nasan Penghakiman Mauslrel dan Nata Kelsrangan, masingmaswng dilihal dx dalam Rekod Rayuan JiI\d1(a|dan Jmd 215). pa] Mermuk kepada masan Fenghakvnan Mayisuex din muks sum! 11 sehmgga 18,1iada sebarang penjewaaan dnbuat nleh Mauslrel berkenaan kedudukan kas ml dan undangaundang dw bawah seksyan 254(1) Kanun wmaaaumanayan Sebahknya an mamaazy:arr.azaan»a M‘ " “’ " -ma sum ...n.. MU he used m mm a. nflmnnflly MIN; dun-mm vn mum W [A9] [501 am wx.:Ew:4aI3Ey:qV'nPzG4vw -ma Sum ...m.. M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly MIN; dun-mm Va muNG pm Mafisllel Vebm banyak menuhs berkanan dengan seksyen 115 Kanun Prasadur Jenayah. Rum pula kepaaa Nola Kelerangan dw Rakod Rayusn ma 2(a). Jelas ax dawn Nova Kelerangan telsebul pihak Pendakwaan hanya msmmla agar kes mu amavakan Perinlah DNAA lanps membuat sebarang mjukan kapada seksyen berkailan permuhonannya. Mahkamah W msnuuk kepada kes Viglly Alfred Raj a/I vlcuor Amrntha Rn]: v. Puhllc Proaocutor [21722] 5 ML! an. [251 am was from ma inc! mama Htgh Counin Ihe instant appeal was nhvtously no: uaanng with a summary ma/, 1: Is also clear max me terms 0/: 173(g) drfler subslanfially and malermfly [mm (hose Inund in s 254 [29] The snaps and purpose 0!: 173(9) has been ab/y explained by Ong CJ m Chu cnaa Pang v Pam Prosecutor 1197312 ML] 35 and I amp: ma sama: Thus, when we who/s ars 1731: vrawad in logical order, n will be seen that pals (g) has a good Ialson aazra Im us inmpoaizmn between paras (:7 and (iv) 9! sea. it rs to be remembenad mar lha procedure in s 173 rs «or summary mars.’ Puw u am sw wxzzwsaeiylqmfizadm -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [511 Psaa pem1spalMa7Ikamah mi Manslrel te\ah Ierkhflaf apabua mak mamhual mwkan kepada seksyerv 254 Kanun Pmmur Jenayah semasa membual kepulusan Iersebul. [521 sebagauuana dmyalakan m dalam has di atas, seksyen 173 Kanun Prcsadur Jenayah sebagaimana Imuknya adalah hag! pmsming Pevbmavaan TENS u\eh Manure! Manakala hagi kes mi. Pendakwaan Ielsh memohan Penman DNAA pada awal-awal kes dtpanggfl malahan mak pun dvbacakan pertuduhan ke a|asnya [53] Namun adakah kepuzusan membsnkan Penman DNAA vanpa rvjukan kepada seksysn 25A Mu Kersa¥ah7 Ruwk pu\E kepada seksyen 25413) Kamm Frosedur Jenayah -Pu-uakwu Ruyu bol-h onqgan unluk mnndakwa snlanjutnya pad: man:-nun: peringkak (3; pexepasan sadsmwkian fidak lenumlah kepada suatu pembebasan mehinkan fika dwarahkan sedem an o\eh Mahkamahf [541 Ruwk sekah Vagi kepada kes Vlgny Alma R-1 (supra) pada perenggan lelah dipumskan nleh VA Dam‘ Zabariah Yusul HMP sspem benkm: ‘{1} Bacaanjelas dan /rtsral nagr s 254(3) KTJ bermakna bahawa spa-spa pa/epesan yang dfbenkan o/eh mallkamsh 4, bswsh s 254 adalah pe/spssarv yang Ildak P... In-M1 beaumlah psmnsbasan, Untuk msmbolshkan pelepssan men/ad! pembebsssn, :9 psnu dianahkan secsra Knusu: o/sh mslvksmah. Kalarkala pembukaan dslsm bahaglan ada/an [alas den nyala, maks mshkamah mestr member/i kesan kspsdu mak:m1nys my jelas din literal.’ [551 Alasan hehau tmak menggunapakai seksyen 254 Kanun Pmsedur Jenayah, namun Ms] De! lelah pun membuax Perinlah DNAA. Vanya dapal umna: pads Nova Kelerangan da\am Rakod Rayuan ma 2(a) an muka sum! 3 dan ianya benepalan dengan kes ssmasa‘ [551 Namun pada hari kepulusan rayuan am iaitu pads 31 Okmber 2023, Rwandan yang dlwakm aleh T1mba\an Fendakwa Rays telah msmaklnmkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa ' anlahan Ierhadsp myuan wen [571 Nssan yang dmeflkan ada1ah kerana bagl es ml perzuduhan bag asmahan VI! uaak pun mbacaxan temadap Perayu. (551 Rum semma kepada Nola Kstevangan di daVam Rekud Rayusn Jxlid 2(a). Jelas hahawa Pendakwaan Ielah membual permohonan DNAA (erhadav kes im ssbalk mpanggfl dan liada sebarang penuduhan yang mbacakan dan pengakuan dnhuat camaaap Perayu sw wx.:Efi3a13Ey:qTnPzG4vw ”'”' " "' " -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm [59] D? da\am kes Publlc Proucmor v. Mlrwnn bln Ismail [2005] 3 MLJ 51 (penuduhan dx bswah seksysn 395(1) Akia Dadih Eerblhaya 1952), dwpmuskan bahawa pmswdmg dx Mshkamah flnggi hagw sapem kes vu bermma apablla permd-man dwbaca dun Ienuduh dmuma memasukkan pengakuan lemadap perluduhan lersebul. [ac] Rujuk kepada ssksyen waqa; Kanun Pmsedur Jenayah, pmssdur yang sauna digunakan bagl perbicaraan Imus m mana perluduhan dibacakan sana amaangkan kepada Ierluduh [61] Davam am Kata lain‘ suatu penuduhan mu berrnma apauua hanya perluduhan dmacakam kepadanya flan pengakuan dvambu berkanan dengan kesalahan ceraahm [521 D. t1a\am kss han mv Mada seumng penuduhan dan pengakuan dlambfl dx Mahkamah Mame: Timbalan Pendakwa mm selelah kes dupanggu memohnn talus kapada Mahksmsh Lmluk periniah DNAA dengan alasan bahawa LO salah daftar [63] Se|eIah menelin semura Rekod Rayuan, Responder: kemudlannya pada 31 Oklobev 2023 mengakui bahawa terdapat kesivauam dan rnanyalakan uada bamahan (erhadap perimah awal inn mkexepnkan. sw wxazfiaaeiylqmfizadm “'5' “ “' " -ma Sum In-nhnv WW .. used w my a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [541 Atas a\asan bahawa ma banlahan lag: dari pihak Resnunden dan selehh menerm bahawa sememangnya kss ini masm fidik wuwd kerana mas pefluduhan dibacakan flan pangakuan mamhil, Mankaman W msmbenavkan Rayuan Ferayu. [es] Sebagaimina raynan dw Km 1, pannlah Mansuat bsrtankn 26 Jun 202: ada\ah wketaprkan dan rayuan Ferayu adalah dmenarkan (NORS IDAH EINTI AWAN Hakxm Mankamzm Tinggi Mam Shah A1 Pmakvihak:— Perayu: Tuan Lokman mn Kulm [Fejabal Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Sebngor] Rasponden: Enclk Mlnohaun Mn [reman M. Manaharan sw wxzzwsaeiylqmfizadm "Y" " °‘ " -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm permahonan Kepeda Mahkamflh agar kss ke svas xammun Qerssbut dilepas lanpa amabasxan (DNAA) kerana (smapal xesuapan pendaflaran oleh pegawav penylasal kes [51 Pwhak paguamnawa lerluduh aanan membanlah permohonan pendakwaan larsebul alas alasan seperli berikul: 61 Terdapal sualu kss dl Mahkamah Persekuluan yang memuluskan hahawa seklranya pefluduhin mum bahk. sepalulnya tevluduh adalah dllepas den amebaskan danpada oerluduhan ke azasnya, {Ian 52 Pads 2B.S.2023,ten1apalsaIu lagx perluduhan mbuaz ke acas Ienuduh di Mahkamah Mamscret 2. selaysng an mama Tuan Mauslrel «em. memnenkan psnnnan me\ePas dun membebaskan lanuduh (DAA) alas alasan xesuapan pendaflsran man pegawaw penyiasat. m Selelah mendsngar alasan yang dlberikan aleh pxhak pendakwaan dan pembelaan, Mamrex (elah memuluskan agar lerluduh dflepas lanpa dxbehaskan (DNAA) daripada penuduhan tersebm. Iv. Huggugu PERAVU [31 Perayu di dalam kss mi Ielah memvauxan Pensyen Rayuan berlarikh 3 Ogcs 2023 an Rekod Rayuan Jam 1, muka Surat e mngga a. syn wxzzwaaeiylqmfizadmn "'“" ’ “' " -mm Sum ...m.. WW .. used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [91 Perayu Ielah mengemukakan dua be¥as (12) alasan dw daVam Pallsyen Rayuannya berksnaan aengam kekhilafan Mafistml. Namun av da\am huiahan uleh Perayu, be\ah merumuskavmya Kepada Isu mama ianu Puan Ms1IsIre|Ielahlerkhilalapabila memberikan psrmtah lepas Oanpa dmenasxan (DNAA) berhadap Perayu dan bukannya memberikan psrimah lspas flan babes (BAA). ISU SAMA ADA MAJISTRET TELAH KHILAF DENGAN YIDAK MENGGUNA PAKAI s.2s4(1} KANUN FROSEDUR JENAVAH [10] Perayu dw dawn hujahannya menuuk kapada kas Kull Tuck Chul v. Public Prosecutor mm 1 ms 12 yang Ietah manggamikan kes m. danpada DNAA kspada DAA. “This power enabling ms drschargs 0/ an accused person without acquming mm Is 3 power which shou/d be sxamssa spanng/y and gmdgingly and only when (he Court is satisfied fol good cause shown that the palm interval rnsrsrenuy demands that :1 be used (See! Ah Ann v. PP [1950] ML] 293;. Our cmms have consistently adoptsd [he line that unless SOME vary guod glourld Is shown it would nor be ngnt to lsavs an indiwdual In! an rnoermire pevfod wnh 5 charge hanging OI/Er/Wm.’ [111 Pevayu kemudiannya merujuk kepada Rem Rayuan ma 2 dan sekan lag! menegasksn bahawa permohonan Pendakwa sw wxzzwsaeiylqmfizedm “’ ‘ “‘ “ ‘Nata sum ...m.. WW .. used m mm u. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm.‘ Raya un|uk kes dwpennlahkan DNAA |s\ah dibual Ianpa akssan yang kukuh. [121 Pendakwa Raye Iwdak memberi makmmal wanna berksnaan dengan xesuapan daflar yang dlmaxsudkan. Rujuk Rekod Rayuan .mm 2(a) dx muka sural 2- 'DPF Dengan izin Puan, puhon kes di mm. 10 salah daflar“ [131 Selam flu menurul Pevayu Mada sebar-any mdikasi dan makmmal yang dibenk/an snma adu Perayu aksn dxdakwa dangan kesalahan yang sama. [14] Ferayu menambah bahawa daripada Noca Kelerangan di RR Jllid 2(a) Iersebut, Perayu lelah memaklumkan bahswa IerdaDa\ salu wagx yang kes di Mahkamah Mapsllel yang Vain, Penman DAA (elah mbenkan [151 TFR fidak msmba\as kepada pengalaan Peguam pads mesa myuan cersebuc rnalanan menyerahkan kspada Mahkamah Majlslrel unluk memhual kapulusan [15] Bag! Pemyu adalah jelas bahawa berdasarkan no|a kelerangsn lied: atasan yang kukuh diberikan unluk mamholehkan kes IN dw duepaskan lznpa dibebaskan. syn wx.:ER3aI3Ey:qV’nPzG4mn ‘"7’ 5 ""’ -nan s.nn In-nhnv wm be used m yaw n. nnnnn mm; dun-mm VI] mum pm [17] Perayu se|arusnya bemujah bahawa Majismal mempunyaw ' ng kuasa umuk mamuenm penmah pehepasan lenumlah kepada pembebasan (DAA). [151 mi bnleh tmakukan walaupun Mapslral kehka meruiuk keaada Perkara 145 wsnembagaan Parsekuluan dan 5.375 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah menyatakan bahawa wanyn ada\ah mdangkuasa Pendakwa Raye umuk memulakan, memalankan axau msmbemenllkan apa—apa pmsldmg pnayah. [191 Perayu man msrujuk kas Chu Ch Fang V. Public Prouculwr {ma} 2 ML! :5 yang menyaukan bahawa Mahkamah mampunyal bidangkuasa dv bawah S 254 Kanun Prosedur Jenayan untuk membuat Perinlah Vepas den babas (DAA) avau Penntah lepas Ianpa babas (DNAA). [20] Wmaupun an bawah Perkara 145 Perlembagaan Persekuluan, Pendakwa Raya dlbenkan kuasa untuk memulakan, menjalunkan auu membsrhanukan apa-apa proskflng, wanya fidak bermaksud bahawa Mahkamah liada kuasa unluk memben Pelintah bevkenaan dengan di bawah seksysn 254 Kanun Pmsedur Jenayah [21] Farayu bemendapal bahawa undakan Pendakwa Rays menghenlikan lindakzm Im bersamaan dengan pembememian dx bawah Perkala 145 Penembagaan Farsekmuan aw wxazwaaeiylqmfizadvw M‘ ' "’ " -ma Sam M... M“ .. used m my a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII .mm W [22] Perayu sslemsnya msmjuk kes Public Prosacmar v. Narxlan bln sumac [Inns] 3 Slr(R)105' "14 According to the appellant, Io 'dlsmnIInua'means to “terminate” R5/lance was placed on (he uennirran in Longmanie Drcttonary ofErvgIr‘sh usage .' [231 Perayu menghujahkan bahawa apabfla sahqa Fandakwa Rays memohan agar Kes mi DNAA bermakna wanya umuk menghemikan Iindakan. SHVHVES dengan seksyen Z54 CFC Maiislrel buleh merlggunakan kuasa bidangkuasa alau ‘judvcml pvwars‘ unluk membual kepulusan manghemlkan keslm. [241 Perinlah DNAA bukarflah Perinlah unluk menghermkan pmsmmg sebafiknya hanya manggantung pnmamg (anpa kesudahan yang pasu. [25] om. ilu secara kssimpmannya Perayu m Hakim isu Ini merumuskan bahawa Majislrel lelah levsakah apahula mak mengsplvkaslkan seksyen 254 Kanun Pvosadm Jenayah dengan msmbavikan Perintah DNAA darn bukan DAA Keputusan mi umenm wa\auDun uinak Pendakwa Raya lidak membamah hujahan Pevayu sebalwknya menysrehkan sepenuhnya kepada Mahkamah uvlluk membual kepuwsan [26] Responden aw dalam kss ml menghwahkan parkara .m dan menyalaksn bahawa Majuslrst lelah betul d‘ damn! membuat syn wxzzwaaeiylqmfizadmn ‘"7’ ’ “‘ 1’ 'NnI2 sum ...m.. M“ .. used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum W Kepulusan untuk memhenarkan permununan Pandakwa Raya bagx mendapalkan penmah DNM. [271 Resnanden menghmahkan bahawa hemasankan psrunlukan seksyen 254 Kamm Pmsedur Jenayah tevsebul, pervntah yang name dvhsnkan kepada Responder: auauan tidsk tarjumlah kepada psmbebasan sepemmana yang dinyalakan dalam seksyen 254(3) Kanun Pmsedur Jenayah «erseem [251 Fermohnnan Pihak Psndakwaan unluk Perayu dilepaskan ianpa dibebaskan ada\ah kersna tardansl kssflapan pendaflaran kes dan Iidak langsung mellhatkan sehalang kelsrangan [291 Ma¥ah vmax Pendakwaan lelah meneruskan Danuduhan lerhadav Perayu av bawah nombor kes bsharu ‘am so-E2-97 oe/2023. Tlada sebarang psmkaian bahawa Pmak Pendakwaan maslh hemlal unluk menemskan penuduhan lerhadap Perayu [30] Respendsn sslemsnya msrumk kepada kss PP v. Zailmddin Sulaiman A Ors[1D3G] 1 cu «ss- 11] The com has no powev to scam! me accused balm; me and cf me prosecution case V‘/hsihsr ms evidence has been grven or no! the ph/ase ‘all such evidence as maybe proriueecrappssr/ng In 5 173(5) of ms Cnmmal Procadurs Codsmvs Code) has me same meaning as me phrase ‘all me evidence hers/nbslom syn wxzzwaaeiylqmfizcdm ’’‘V‘ ' "’ " -we Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm we nvwhuflly MW; dun-mm VII mum pm referred to" rn 5 173m olxhs Code. an the svldence mean: by mess rwa phrases iru:/unis bum the evidence which is available at me Mel and 0151 which is not Du! WIN be made available Ifa posrponsmelfl 07 M6 MS/ I: grsnled. (The case of PP V Mchd. Sa):1[1962] 1 ms 130 was not roIIuwe.1.)' [31] oven nu Respondsn mensgaskan bahawa Majisxrm lekah lidak tsrkniva! m aavam mambual kepmusan DNAA Iersahul den berpadanan dengan seksysn 378 Kanun Prosedur Jena)/Eh [321 Semerusnya Mahkamah ini merujuk pula kepada Nasal! Penghakiman Majwsivel di navam Rekod Rayuan JIIM 1(a) dan muka suv-3110 hingga muka sural cs. [33] Secam asasnya Maj\s1ra| di dalam membual kapumsan unluk mebpaskan ranpa membsbaskan (DNAA) Perayu, Ie\ah merujuk secara menyelunm lerhadap psrurvlukanyemntuk/:17! m dzflam seksyan 17:4 Ksnun Pmseauraenayan sana Parkara 145(3) Periembagaan Parsskuluan [34] Pads peranggan 16 Rskad Rayuan 1(a) di muka sure! 17, M sire! le\sh membual mjukan kepada perunluksrv perumukan dv atas den manymakan bahawa nanya ada\ah kuasa mullak men Pendakwa Rsya unluk memulakan, menjakankan axau memhsrhenlikan apa—apa prosmmg bag: kesalahan mnayah. sw wxzzwaaeiylqmfizadnw "" ' °' " -mm Sum ...m.. WW be used M my a. nflmnnfllli mm; dun-mm VII .nuNG pm.‘ [35] Selerusnya dawn Jilid yang sama an persnggan 19. Mauslrel meruwk kepada seksysn 173(4) Kamm ProsedurJenayah dan msnyatakan bahawa kes im masih belum selesai dibmsrakan seknanya hendak mpmuskan di bawah saksyen 173(4) Kanun Pmseduv Jenayah. [as] Pads paranggan 19 pma Mapslml mamexasm bahawa Pendakwaan pada hilarbfla masa udsk menyatakan mgm memberhen|Ik/an Iindakan Iamadsp Perayu [:37] Oleh am manuru(Majls1relkepuIusan beliau unluk membua| Perimah DNAA adalah wajar dan menuml Iandasan undang» undang serca max menyaxam mana»mana prinsup .muang— undang Isu BAI-IAWA TIADA PERMOHONAN TEGAS UNTUK DNAA OLEH PIHAK PENDAKWAAN [as] Parayu pads bahaglan karma huiahannya mendikwa bahawa pmak Fendskw-aan (idak pun bevlegas untuk memohan agar mnenkan Perinm DNAA alau DAA, sebalvknya menysrahkan kepada bum bicara Mahkamsh msmhual keputusan. [an] Perayu menquk kapada kes Gan Hwa Klang v. PP[1021]I CL: 57: 2.. ma opp havmg conduclolme case, when spplyrng for pasrpansmam 0! may on 13 July 2020, was unawe Io savrsry me court that (ha case would he proceeded aw wxzzwaaeiylqmfizedm ”'“‘ ‘° “' " -ma sum ...m. M“ be used w my a. nflmnnfily mm; dun-mm VII mum W

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-29NCC-648-10/2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMANLembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan PekerjaPENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMANHAI CHER SENG

Sama ada tindakan JD dalam memfailkan Notis Niat untuk menentang Petisyen tanpa menyatakan pernyataan mana yang tidak dipersetujui dalam Petisyen Pemiutang JC, dan seterusnya mengusulkan bantahan-bantahan dalam bentuk Afidavit Sokongan yang difailkan 3 minggu kemudian, adalah ketidakaturan yang mewajarkan bantahan JD wajar ditolak oleh Mahkamah?Sama ada tuntutan JC terhadap JD atas kapasiti sebagai Pengarah kepada Syarikat menurut seksyen 46 Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja tanpa melengkapkan (exhaust) tindakan pelaksanaan terhadap Syarikat terlebih dahulu adalah penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah?Sama ada Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen adalah tidak teratur kerana bertentangan dengan seksyen 133 Akta Insolvensi 1967 dan Kaedah 215 Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017?

16/01/2024

Tuan Arun A/L Noval Dass

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=51881a57-7c92-49b6-bb03-cc446994f2d6&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NOMBOR: JA-29NCC-648-10/2022 PERKARA : HAI CHER SENG … PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN EX-PARTE: LEMBAGA KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA … PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16/01/2024 16:11:56 JA-29NCC-648-10/2022 Kand. 32 S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Pengenalan 1. Pemiutang Penghakiman (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “JC”) telah membawa tindakan sivil di Mahkamah Sesyen Johor Bahru terhadap Hawaii Bakery & Food Industries (M) Sdn Bhd (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Syarikat Hawaii”) dan terhadap 4 lagi individu lain (termasuk Penghutang Penghakiman) atas kapasiti pengarah- pengarah berdaftar kepada Syarikat Hawaii antara lain bagi jumlah caruman Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja yang tertunggak bagi tempoh di antara Julai 2018 sehingga Oktober 2018. 2. Lanjutan itu, pada 14.2.2019, JC telah memasukkan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran terhadap kesemua defendan tersebut di mana kesemua Defendan dikehendaki membayar secara bersesama dan berasingan kepada Plaintif jumlah penghakiman yang dimasukkan tersebut. 3. Bersandarkan penghakiman tersebut, JC telah mengeluarkan Notis Kebankrapan terhadap Penghutang Penghakiman (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “JD”) bagi jumlah RM220,940.00 setakat 27.10.2022. Notis Kebankrapan tersebut telah disampaikan kepada JD secara penyampaian ganti. 4. Seterusnya, JC telah memfailkan Petisyen Pemiutang terhadap JD. JC menyempurnakan penyampaian Petisyen Pemiutang terhadap JD secara penyampaian ganti. S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 5. Seterusnya, JD memfailkan Notis Niat Penghutang Penghakiman untuk melawan Petisyen (Lampiran 26) pada 4.7.2023 yang seterusnya disokong dengan Afidavit Sokongan yang diikrarkan pada 1.8.2023 (Lampiran 27) yang menjadi subjek pertikaian untuk diputuskan Mahkamah. BANTAHAN AWAL JC 6. JC mengusulkan bantahan awal dalam hujahan bertulis beliau bahawa tindakan JD dalam memfailkan Notis Niat untuk menentang Petisyen tanpa menyatakan pernyataan mana yang tidak dipersetujui dalam Petisyen Pemiutang JC, dan seterusnya mengusulkan bantahan- bantahan dalam bentuk Afidavit Sokongan yang difailkan 3 minggu kemudian, adalah ketidakaturan yang mewajarkan bantahan JD wajar ditolak oleh Mahkamah. 7. Mahkamah dalam hal ini merujuk kepada Kaedah 116 Kaedah- kaedah Insolvensi 2017 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Kaedah Tersebut”) yang memperuntukkan bahawa:- “Jika seorang penghutang berniat untuk menunjuk sebab terhadap suatu petisyen, dia hendaklah memfailkan suatu notis sebagaimana dalam Borang 45 dengan Pendaftar menetapkan pernyataan dalam petisyen itu yang dia berniat untuk menafikan atau mempertikaikan dan menghantar melalui pos atau dengan cara lain kepada pemiutang pempetisyen dan kepada peguamnya jika diketahui suatu salinan notis itu tiga hari sebelum hari petisyen itu akan didengar.” S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 8. Dalam mentaksirkan kaedah ini, Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Development & Commercial Bank Berhad v Datuk Ong Kian Seng [1995] 2 MLJ 724; [1995] 3 CLJ 307; [1995] 1 MLRA 383; [1995] 1 AMR 178 memutuskan bahawa:- “Rule 117 provides that where a debtor intends to show cause against a petition, he shall file a notice specifying the statements in the petition which he intends to deny or dispute. The contents of the notice can be found in Form 16 of the rules wherein it must be stated that he intends to oppose the making of the receiving order as prayed and that he intends either to dispute the petitioning creditor's debt or the act of bankruptcy or as the case may be. Rule 18 of the Rules further provides that except where the rules or the Act provide, every application shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be made by motion supported by an affidavit. In Datuk Lim Kheng Kim, the Supreme Court held that failure to follow r. 18, which requires an application to be made by motion supported by affidavit, renders an affidavit in opposition ineffective and bad in law because unless the Court otherwise directs, challenges to the creditor's petition or bankruptcy notice other than that the debtor has a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the judgment debt, must be made by filing a notice of motion supported by an affidavit. This Court has no reason to disagree with the decision and will follow it. Accordingly, in our view, the respondent's affidavit in opposition cannot be substituted as a notice to show cause against the creditor's petition to challenge the validity of the bankruptcy notice.” 9. Dalam menjelaskan lanjut prinsip ini, Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Dato’ Sri Teong Teck Leng v Jupiter Securities Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 1; [2003] 4 CLJ 34; [2003] 1 MLRA 612; [2003] 5 AMR 672 memutuskan bahawa:- “In our view, where the judgment debtor only wishes to show cause against the petition, all he has to do is to file a notice in Form No. 16 specifying the statements in the petition which he intends to deny or dispute. That is all he has to do… As we have said earlier, the inclusion of the words "creditor's petition or" in that sentence is rather unfortunate. But, we think that even that can be explained if we draw a distinction between "to show cause against a petition" and "to challenge a petition". In the case of the former, the method is provided by rule 117 (Form No. 16). But, where the debtor wants to apply to set aside S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 the petition on other grounds, eg, for non-compliance with the rules regarding the petition, then a summons in chambers must be filed. This is understandable because such grounds arise separately from the statements in the petition and therefore cannot be "specified" in the notice (Form No. 16). The difference between the two may be likened to a defendant in a civil suit who wants to defend the action and a defendant who wants to strike out the writ and the statement of claim. In the case of the former, he merely files a statement of defence. In the latter case, he has to file a summons in chambers under O. 18 r. 19 RHC 1980.” 10. Berdasarkan nas-nas di atas, sekiranya JD ingin menunjuk sebab terhadap Petisyen Pemiutang yang difailkan, JD hanya perlu mengemukakan notis niat dalam bentuk borang 45 dengan menyatakan secara spesifik pernyataan-pernyataan dalam Petisyen tersebut yang tidak diakui atau dicabar JD. Sekiranya JD ingin mengetepikan Petisyen Pemiutang atas alasan-alasan lain yang tidak terlingkung dalam kandungan Petisyen Pemiutang yang difailkan, JD boleh memfailkan Saman Dalam Kamar yang disokong dengan affidavit. 11. Dalam kes ini, JD telah memfailkan Notis Niat untuk melawan Petisyen (Lampiran 26) dan menyatakan dalam notis niat tersebut bahawa JD "berniat melawan perintah penerimaan diminta seperti dipohon” dan “berniat mempertikaikan keesahan Petisyen Pemiutang”. Sebagaimana dihujahkan oleh JC, JD dengan jelas tidak memperincikan pernyataan-pernyataan yang tidak diakui atau dicabar dalam Petisyen Pemiutang yang telah difailkan JC sebagaimana dikehendaki menurut undang-undang. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Gamel Nasir Taib v Dopag Far East Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 551; [2021] 1 LNS 389; [2021] MLRHU 365; [2021] AMEJ 0446 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 “[33] The notice in form 45 herein, being enclosure 30, did not specify the statements in the petition which the JD intends to deny or dispute but had only averred that "saya berniat untuk menentang pendengaran petisyen ini untuk suatu perintah penerimaan seperti dipohon dan saya juga berminat untuk mempertikaikan hutang yang dituntut oleh Pemiutang Penghakiman dan tindakan kebankrapan yang didakwa.." In the circumstances, the JD is therefore deemed not to have shown cause against the Petition herein as required by the law.” 12. Malah, kegagalan JD untuk membutirkan pernyataan yang dicabar atau dinafikan dalam Petisyen Pemiutang akan bertindak fatal kepada JD sebagaimana diputuskan dalam kes Cho Yu-Lon v Arab- Malaysian Finance Bhd [2003] 5 MLJ 289; [2003] 2 CLJ 186; [2003] 1 MLRH 89 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “Cik Rusmin for the judgment creditor pointed out that what the said notice filed by the judgment debtor showed was that the judgment debtor intended to dispute the debt. All that the judgment debtor has said is that he intends to oppose the prayers sought in the creditor's petition and that he therefore is disputing the debt. However, pursuant to r 117 of the Rules, the judgment debtor must specify the statement in the petition which he intends to deny or dispute. The detailed particulars as contained in the creditor's petition contains 20 different items with their respective calculations. There are also set out 16 instances when payments were credited. The judgment debtor has indeed failed to identify the items he intended to dispute. This to my mind is clearly a breach of r 117 of the Rules. On this preliminary issue itself, I find for the judgment creditor.” S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 13. Tambahan lagi, penelitian Mahkamah kepada Afidavit Sokongan yang difailkan menunjukkan bahawa salah satu isu yang ditimbulkan JD adalah JC seharusnya melengkapkan tindakan pelaksanaan terhadap Syarikat Hawaii tersebut terlebih dahulu sebelum memulakan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD, dan kegagalan JC berbuat demikian menunjukkan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD adalah penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Mahkamah dapati alasan ini merupakan alasan berasingan dari kandungan Petisyen Pemiutang yang difailkan, maka dengan demikian, JD seharusnya memfailkan Saman Dalam Kamar yang perlu disokong dengan Afidavit Sokongan. 14. Maka, atas alasan-alasan ini sendiri Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa bantahan JD untuk membantah Petisyen Pemiutang wajar ditolak. Namun, bagi kesempurnaan, Mahkamah akan meneliti isu-isu yang ditimbulkan JD dalam Afidavit Sokongan JD. Isu Pertama: JC tidak melengkapkan kesemua tindakan pelaksanaan terhadap Syarikat Hawaii sebelum memulakan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD 15. JD antara lain berhujah bahawa JC menuntut sejumlah RM220,940.00 atas kapasiti sebagai Pengarah kepada Syarikat Hawaii tersebut menurut seksyen 46 Akta Kumpulan W ang Simpanan Pekerja. JD berhujah bahawa JC seharusnya melengkapkan (exhaust) tindakan pelaksanaan terhadap Syarikat Hawaii tersebut terlebih dahulu. Memandangkan JC gagal mengambil sebarang tindakan pelaksanaan terhadap Syarikat Hawaii tersebut, maka tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD di sini adalah penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 16. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Akta KWSP”) mempunyai objektif dan fokus yang berbeza berbanding Akta Insolvensi 1967. Niat parlimen dalam menggubal seksyen 5(3) dan 5(4) Akta Insolvensi 1967 adalah untuk melindungi Penjamin bukan sosial dari diambil tindakan kebankrapan sebelum tindakan perlaksanaan selesai diambil terhadap peminjam prinsipal. Perkara ini dapat dilihat dalam pembentangan pindaan kepada Akta Insolvensi 1967, di mana Menteri menyatakan seperti berikut:- “Kerajaan amat prihatin isu-isu kebankrapan terutama di mana mereka diisytiharkan bankrap disebabkan mereka menjadi penjamin kepada peminjam yang gagal menjelaskan pinjaman. Golongan ini tidak sepatutnya dipertanggungjawabkan sepenuhnya tanpa tindakan terhadap peminjam prinsipal terlebih dahulu untuk menjelaskan pinjaman yang diambil… …Kerajaan telah mempertimbangkan lapan perubahan dasar untuk meminda Akta Kebankrapan 1967 seperti berikut: (i) tindakan kebankrapan tidak boleh diambil terhadap penjamin sosial. Walau bagaimanapun penjamin bukan sosial boleh dibankrapkan setelah mahkamah berpuas hati dengan tindakan-tindakan yang dibuat oleh pihak pemiutang;…” 17. Perkara ini juga dapat jelas dilihat dalam kes Re Rusli Ab Ghani; Ex- Parte: CIMB Bank Berhad [2018] 1 LNS 1528; [2018] MLRHU 1180 di mana dalam mentaksirkan peruntukan di bawah seksyen 5 Akta Insolvensi 1967, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “[11] Subsections 5(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are new provisions which were inserted vide Act A1534 and came into force on 6.10.2017 and at the same time the Rules were introduced replacing the Bankruptcy Rules 1969. Prior to these amendments a petition creditor had to prove that he had exhausted all avenues to recover debts owed to him by the debtor before he could commence a bankruptcy petition against a social guarantor. S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 However, with effect from 6.10.2017 a social guarantor is absolutely protected and cannot be made a bankrupt. That protection is now accorded to other guarantors who were not protected before the amendment… This simply means that a judgment creditor must ensure that all modes of execution and enforcement have been exhausted against the debtor who is the borrower before he can go against the guarantor. Once that is shown then leave will be granted by the court for the judgment creditor to commence bankruptcy petition against the guarantor.” 18. Secara perbandingan, Akta KWSP yang diluluskan Parlimen adalah berkaitan satu skim simpanan untuk persaraan pekerja dan pengurusan simpanan itu bagi maksud persaraan pekerja. Maka, atas objektif tersebut, seksyen 46 Akta KWSP memperuntukkan bahawa Syarikat dan Pengarah-pengarah Syarikat adalah bertanggungan bersesama dan berasingan terhadap caruman yang gagal dibayar oleh Syarikat. Seksyen 46 Akta KWSP memperuntukkan bahawa:- “(1) Jika apa-apa caruman masih tidak dibayar oleh sesuatu syarikat…maka, walau apa pun apa-apa jua yang berlawanan dalam Akta ini atau mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang lain, pengarah syarikat itu termasuklah mana- mana orang yang pernah menjadi pengarah syarikat itu dalam masa tempoh yang di dalamnya caruman itu bertanggungan dibayar…, hendaklah bersama dengan syarikat,…yang bertanggungan untuk membayar caruman tersebut, bersama- sama dan berasingan bertanggungan bagi caruman yang genap masa untuk dibayar dan kena dibayar kepada Kumpulan Wang.” 19. Dalam mentaksirkan frasa “bersama-sama dan berasingan” tersebut, undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja boleh membawa tindakan sama ada terhadap Syarikat sahaja, atau bersesama dengan Pengarah-pengarahnya, atau hanya terhadap Pengarah-pengarahnya. S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 20. Perkara ini dapat dilihat dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan Ong Kim Chuan & Anor v Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja [2009] 5 MLJ 807; [2009] 6 CLJ 586; [2009] 2 MLRA 565 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “[18] Under s. 46, it is crystal clear that directors of a company (including persons or former directors who were directors during such periods in which contributions were liable to be paid to the EPF) shall together with the company be jointly and severally liable for the contributions due and payable to the fund. These provisions are to be enforceable "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other written law". [19] Being "jointly and severally liable" the said directors are liable either jointly together with the company or severally on their own independently of the company. In the present case, the plaintiff may choose to initiate its claim against the company (1st defendant) jointly with the two appellants (which was done initially) or to sue the appellants alone without the company (which was done later when the plaintiff withdrew its claim against the 1st defendant after the 1st defendant was wound up). The liability of the appellants (as directors at the relevant times) is based on the provisions of s. 46 of the EPF Act above, not on common law or any other written law, not even the Companies Act 1965. Section 46 stands by itself "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the EPF Act or any other written law". 21. Malah, Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Edwin Cassian Nagappan [2021] 5 MLJ 253; [2021] 7 CLJ 823; [2021] 5 MLRA 178; [2021] 6 AMR 429 telah mengingatkan Mahkamah-mahkamah bawahan bahawa niat parlimen sebagaimana termaktub dalam seksyen 46 Akta KWSP tersebut tidak sewenang-wenangnya diperlekehkan dan perlu diberi kesan yang penuh. Mahkamah dalam kes tersebut memutuskan bahawa:- S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 “[36] The instant appeal concerns a consent judgment entered into between the parties. Of primary importance is s. 46 of the EPF Act which imposes joint and several liability on the directors of a company for unpaid contributions. These provisions must be given full effect, as they comprise statutory law. It is not open to the courts to stultify, vary or whittle down the clear provisions promulgated by Parliament in relation to liability for EPF contributions, by construing judgments in manner which is not consonant with the EPF Act. In short, the EPF Act prevails over the terms of the judgment… [39] In our considered opinion, the courts below erred in law in invoking the presumption that joint liability means liability for only half the debt and not the full amount. As mentioned earlier, joint and several liability gives rise to one joint obligation and to as many several obligations as there are joint and several promises. The promisee, ie, the Board, is therefore entitled to proceed against one promisor, or the other, or both, in order to procure full performance as is evident from s. 44 of the EPF Act.” 22. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa adalah penting untuk merujuk kes Berkenaan: Ahmed Ismail Haji Amin v Ex-Parte: Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja [2022] MLJU 1291; [2022] 1 LNS 1196; [2022] AMEJ 0636. Menurut fakta kes tersebut, JD dalam kes tersebut adalah seorang ahli Persatuan Automobil Malaysia (AAM). Pada 5.10.2018, Lembaga KWSP telah membawa tindakan terhadap AAM dan kesemua ahli AAM untuk tunggakan caruman KSWP pekerja AAM di Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur. Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran telah dimasukkan terhadap AAM dan ahli AAM bagi jumlah RM113,657.00. Seterusnya, KWSP membawa tindakan kebankrapan terhadap kesemua Defendan-defendan yang merupakan ahli AAM dan bukan terhadap AAM sendiri. JD dalam kes tersebut merujuk kepada seksyen 5 Akta Insolvensi 1967 dan berhujah bahawa KWSP tidak melengkapkan kesemua langkah perlaksanaan terhadap AAM terlebih dahulu untuk menyelesaikan hutang tertunggak, sebelum membawa tindakan terhadap ahli- ahlinya. S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 23. JD juga berhujah bahawa memandangkan ahli-ahli AAM bakal memfailkan permohonan Mandamus terhadap JC untuk memaksa JC melupuskan aset-aset AAM terlebih dahulu untuk melunaskan hutang AAM, tindakan JC terhadap JD adalah penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Dalam menolak hujahan JD tersebut, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa:- “[11] At this point of time, this Bankruptcy Court cannot go behind the orders pronounced. Therefore, the JC has a right to enforce the judgment, (see Sovereign General Insurance Sdn Bhd v. Koh Tian Bee [1988] 1 CLJ Rep 277.) The federal Court in the case of Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v. Edwin Cassian Nagappan decide that: [38] Finally, s. 44 of the EPF Act is also relevant by virtue of our discussion above. It is manifestly clear that the liability of the judgment debtors in the present appeal is both joint and several by operation of law.” 24. Berdasarkan nas-nas di atas, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa hujahan JD dalam isu ini adalah tidak bermerit dan dengan demikian, wajar ditolak. Isu Kedua: Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen tidak teratur 25. JD seterusnya mengusulkan bantahan bahawa Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen adalah tidak teratur kerana deponen hanya menyatakan beliau adalah Pengurus Unit Pendakwaan/Litigasi tetapi tidak menyatakan bahawa beliau adalah pegawai yang diberi kuasa dengan sewajarnya di bawah meterai. Maka, JD berhujah bahawa Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen tersebut adalah tidak teratur dan bertentangan dengan seksyen 133 Akta Insolvensi 1967 dan Kaedah 215 Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017. S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 26. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 133 Akta Insolvensi 1967 yang memperuntukkan bahawa:- “133 Acts of corporations, firms and mentally disordered persons For all or any of the purposes of this Act- (a) a corporation may act by any of its officers authorized in that behalf under the seal of the corporation; (b) a firm may act by any of its members; (c) a mentally disordered person or lunatic may act by his committee or curator bonis.” 27. Merujuk kepada peruntukan tersebut, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan JC bahawa seksyen 133 Akta Insolvensi 1967 adalah bersifat direktori dan bukan mandatori. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Re Ho Fok, Ex-P Ann Bee (M) Sdn Bhd [2002] 5 MLJ 331; [2002] 2 CLJ 223; [2002] 1 MLRH 58; [2002] 2 AMR 1323 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “In my considered view there is hardly any justification to read r. 215 in conjunction with s. 133(a) of the Act and to find therefrom that in all the three instances of presenting a petition of a corporation under r. 215 the officer must be authorised under the seal of the corporation, and that a failure to state so in the petition renders the petition void and ineffective. Section 133(a) of the Act merely says that for the purpose of the Act a corporation may act by any of its officers authorised under the seal of the corporation so to act. It does not say that the corporation must at all costs and in all cases act only by its officer who must be authorised under the seal of the corporation. The section is therefore purely directory and not mandatory in nature. S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 It would be ideal if a corporation decides to act in harmony with the requirement. But the fact that the authority to act was not given to him under the seal of the corporation does not ipso facto mean that the officer does not have the authority to act for the corporation and that the petition should be dismissed forthwith. The purpose of r. 215 Bankruptcy Rules 1969 and s. 133(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 is merely to prescribe a format within which a corporation should go about in presenting a bankruptcy petition thereby providing in the process some form of orderliness and certainty as where for instance an officer can positively assert in the petition itself that he had been authorised under the seal of the corporation to present the petition there could be little in the way of his standing that can be questioned for has he not with him the very seal of the corporation? But that does not necessarily mean that the petition should be rejected by the court merely because the officer did not follow this procedure if he could show by other convincing means that he has indeed been authorised to act for the corporation, such as by a resolution of the Board of Directors as the petitioner did in the instant case.” 28. Berdasarkan nas di atas, penelitian Mahkamah kepada Petisyen yang difailkan dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa Deponen Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen, Rozana Binti Rahmat, telah menyatakan secara spesifik seperti berikut sebelum menurunkan tandatangan beliau dalam Petisyen tersebut:- “Di tandatangani oleh ROZANA BINTI RAHMAT dan diberikuasa dengan sepenuhnya oleh Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja untuk Menandatangani Permohonan Pemiutang Penghakiman ini di bawah meterai pihak Pemiutang Penghakiman” S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 29. Malah, Mahkamah juga dapati deponen tersebut telah mendeposkan dalam perenggan 8 Afidavit Jawapan beliau bahawa beliau diberi kuasa dengan sepenuhnya oleh JC untuk menandatangani Petisyen Pemiutang di bawah meterainya. Deponen juga mengeksibitkan Suratcara Penurunan Kuasa, senarai Gred Gaji, gelaran jawatan Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja dan pengesahan jawatan deponen selaku pegawai Gred E2 dalam Afidavit Jawapan JC. Berdasarkan dokumen-dokumen tersebut, deponen mendeposkan bahawa beliau diturunkan kuasa untuk menandatangani kertas kausa tindakan kebankrapan ini memandangkan beliau adalah pegawai Gred E2 yang merupakan pegawai di atas gred G6. 30. Sebagaimana dihujahkan JC, JD tidak pernah mencabar pernyataan- pernyataan deponen tersebut melalui Afidavit Jawapan JD maka pernyataan-pernyataan tersebut dianggap diakui benar [Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 CLJ 609; [1995] 1 MLRA 48; [1995] 1 AMR 622]. Maka, berdasarkan keterangan yang ada di hadapan Mahkamah, cabaran yang diusulkan JD adalah cabaran kosong semata-mata tanpa sebarang keterangan atau butiran berkenaan kuasa deponen tersebut menandatangani dokumentasi kes kebankrapan tersebut. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah sekali lagi merujuk kepada kes Re Ho Fok (supra) di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “There is a common law presumption that every official act is presumed to have been regularly performed. Where therefore on the face of it a petition indicates that it is being presented by an officer of the corporation, a party questioning the legality of its issuance, must first show by some credible evidence that he has reason to believe that it has not been issued with the authority of the corporation. It is insufficient merely for him to point to some perceived irregularities in the petition and apply for the petition to be dismissed.” S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 31. Mahkamah seterusnya merujuk kepada kaedah 215 Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017 yang memperuntukkan bahawa:- “(1) Apabila suatu perbadanan menyerahkan suatu petisyen atau mengambil apa- apa tindakan lain di bawah Akta, pegawai perbadanan itu boleh bertindak atas namanya sendiri, menyatakan bahawa dia adalah pegawai yang diberi kuasa dengan sewajarnya di bawah meterai; tetapi suatu petisyen boleh diserahkan oleh perbadanan itu, dan ditandatangani oleh pegawai itu bagi pihak perbadanan. (2) Mana-mana orang yang dipilih oleh perbadanan untuk bertindak bagi pihaknya sebagai ejen, adalah seorang "pegawai" dalam pengertian seksyen 133 Akta, dan sekiranya diberi kuasa dengan sewajarnya di bawah meterai boleh bertindak bagi pihak perbadanan itu.” 32. Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan JC bahawa memandangkan deponen mendeposkan dalam Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen bahawa beliau adalah seorang pegawai Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja dan seterusnya menandatangani afidavit tersebut, maka perkara tersebut sememangnya memenuhi limb kedua kaedah 215 di atas. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Re Tan Sri Amin Shah Omar Shah; Ex P Affin Bank Bhd [2008] 8 MLJ 125; [2008] 9 CLJ 772; [2008] 3 MLRH 164 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “[7] The procedure for the presentation of a petition on behalf of a corporation is provided for under r. 215 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969. It states, inter alia, that a petition may be presented by the corporation and signed by the officer on its behalf… [8] Now, upon examining the manner the petition is presented, the presentation of the petition in the present case is clearly pursuant to the second (alternative) limb as provided for by the above r. 215, that is to say, pursuant to that part of the provision that stipulates: .... a petition may be presented by the corporation, and signed by the officer on its behalf.... S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [9] This means that the petition is presented by the corporation (that is the company, Affin Bank Berhad) and is signed by a duly authorized officer of the company. That officer, as I have mentioned earlier, is Mohamad Aslam Khan bin Ghulam Hassan, a Senior Vice President, Special Asset Management, of the bank/corporation (the creditor). It is significant to note that the petition states that he is an officer of the creditor company and that he has been authorised to sign and to present the petition on behalf of the creditor company. And the petition bears his signature. [10] When the presentation is pursuant to the second (alternative) limb of r. 215, the officer signing does not need to be armed with a power of attorney. All that he is required to have is the authority to sign and to present the petition; and in the petition and verifying affidavit he must state that he is an officer of the company/creditor and that as an officer he is duly authorized by the company to sign and to present the petition on behalf of the company. Since in the present case the signing and presentation of the petition was by an authorised officer of the creditor pursuant to r. 215, therefore, the argument of the debtor's counsel pertaining to the power of attorney issued to the officer Mohamad Aslam, even if a power of attorney had been issued to him, is totally irrelevant.” 33. Tanpa mengambil kira alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah turut menilai dengan lebih lanjut dakwaan JD bagi maksud penghujahan (argument sake) iaitu sama ada kegagalan deponen JC dalam menyatakan secara spesifik dalam Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen bahawa beliau diberi kuasa dengan sewajarnya untuk menandatangani Afidavit tersebut bertindak fatal kepada JC, walaupun pernyataan yang sama telah jelas dibutirkan dalam Petisyen Pemiutang yang turut ditandatangani deponen yang sama. Dalam hal ini, perenggan (2) kepada Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa:- S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 “(2) Bahawa tiap-tiap satu pernyataan dalam Petisyen tersebut adalah dalam pengetahuan saya sendiri dan adalah benar” 34. Memandangkan pernyataan tersebut dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa deponen mempunyai pengetahuan penuh berkenaan pernyataan dalam Petisyen tersebut, maka pernyataan tersebut memenuhi seksyen 6(1) Akta Insolvensi 1967 dan kaedah 105(2) Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017. Maka, sekiranyapun Afidavit tersebut tidak memenuhi seksyen 133 Akta Insolvensi 1967 mahupun kaedah 215 Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017 (yang mana dinafikan sebagaimana dihuraikan di atas), peruntukan seksyen 6(1) Akta Insolvensi 1967 dan kaedah 105(2) Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017 mengatasi seksyen 133 Akta Insolvensi 1967 dan kaedah 215 Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017 kerana peruntukan-peruntukan terdahulu tersebut adalah peruntukan khusus berkenaan kandungan Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen. Perkara ini ada diputuskan dalam kes Re Daljit Kaur Harjan Singh; Ex P Perbadanan Pengurusan Ixora [2015] 8 CLJ 573; [2016] 1 MLRH 152; [2015] 4 AMR 174 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “[38]Sections 4 and 5(1)(a) to (d) BA prescribe the conditions for a creditor to present a "bankruptcy petition" (defined in s. 2 BA to include a "petition for a receiving order", such as the CP in this case). Sections 4 and 5(1)(a) to (d) BA do not stipulate as a condition for the presentation of a CP that the deponent of the verifying affidavit should be duly authorised by the creditor to affirm the verifying affidavit. [39] I am of the view that s. 6(1) BA and r. 106(2) BR only require the contents of the verifying affidavit to be verified by a person who has personal knowledge of the facts upon which the CP is based and there is no mandatory requirement that the deponent of the verifying affidavit should be duly authorised by the creditor… S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 s. 133(a) BA is not a mandatory provision as is clear from the use of the permissive word "may" in that provision. ….even if I assume s. 133(a) BA to have mandatory effect and hence, there is a conflict between s. 6(1) BA and s. 133(a) BA, I prefer to apply s. 6(1) BA and not s. 133(a) BA as regards verifying affidavits. This is because s. 6(1) BA is a specific statutory provision concerning verifying affidavits whereas s. 133(a) BA is only a general provision applicable to "all or any of the purposes" of BA. Accordingly, for verifying affidavits, the specific provision of s. 6(1) BA should prevail over the general provision of s. 133(a) BA as provided by the rule of statutory interpretation of generalibus specialia derogant. In Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tan Hor Teng & Anor [1995] 3 CLJ 520; [1995] 1 MLJ 719, at pp. 758-759, Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was) in the Court of Appeal applied the maxim generalibus specialia derogant to give effect to a specific provision of the National Land Code (NLC) in preference to a general provision in NLC. Based on the same maxim generalibus specialia derogant, the specific r. 106(2) BR should be preferred over the general r. 215 BR in respect of verifying affidavits.” 35. Maka, berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah juga mendapati isu kedua yang ditimbulkan JD juga adalah tidak bermerit. KESIMPULAN 36. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah menolak Notis Niat Penghutang Penghakiman untuk melawan Petisyen (Lampiran 26) dan Afidavit Sokongan yang diikrarkan pada 1.8.2023 (Lampiran 27) dengan kos dalam kausa. S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Bertarikh: 16 Januari 2024 Disediakan oleh, …………………………………. ARUN A/L NOVAL DASS Timbalan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Johor Bahru Pihak-pihak: 1. Tetuan K.H.Choo & Co Peguamcara Penghutang Penghakiman Bilik 305, Tingkat 3, Wisma Daiman, 64, Jalan Sulam, Taman Sentosa, 80150 Johor Bahru, Johor [No Ruj: CKH/SAG/12568/20] … Mr Choo Keng Hee 2. Tetuan M Syed Faisal & Co Peguamcara Pemiutang Penghakiman Bilik 19.04, 19th Floor, Bangunan KWSP, Jalan Dato’ Dalam, 80000 Johor Bahru, Johor [No Ruj:SF/KWSP/L 2331(5)(A)/2016] … Mr Syed Faisal S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Kes-kes yang dirujuk: 1. Development & Commercial Bank Berhad v Datuk Ong Kian Seng [1995] 2 MLJ 724; [1995] 3 CLJ 307; [1995] 1 MLRA 383; [1995] 1 AMR 178 2. Dato’ Sri Teong Teck Leng v Jupiter Securities Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 1; [2003] 4 CLJ 34; [2003] 1 MLRA 612; [2003] 5 AMR 672 3. Gamel Nasir Taib v Dopag Far East Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 551; [2021] 1 LNS 389; [2021] MLRHU 365; [2021] AMEJ 0446 4. Cho Yu-Lon v Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd [2003] 5 MLJ 289; [2003] 2 CLJ 186; [2003] 1 MLRH 89 5. Re Rusli Ab Ghani; Ex-Parte: CIMB Bank Berhad [2018] 1 LNS 1528; [2018] MLRHU 1180 6. Ong Kim Chuan & Anor v Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja [2009] 5 MLJ 807; [2009] 6 CLJ 586; [2009] 2 MLRA 565 7. Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Edwin Cassian Nagappan [2021] 5 MLJ 253; [2021] 7 CLJ 823; [2021] 5 MLRA 178; [2021] 6 AMR 429 8. Berkenaan: Ahmed Ismail Haji Amin v Ex-Parte: Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja [2022] MLJU 1291; [2022] 1 LNS 1196; [2022] AMEJ 0636 9. Re Ho Fok, Ex-P Ann Bee (M) Sdn Bhd [2002] 5 MLJ 331; [2002] 2 CLJ 223; [2002] 1 MLRH 58; [2002] 2 AMR 1323 10. Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 CLJ 609; [1995] 1 MLRA 48; [1995] 1 AMR 622 11. Re Tan Sri Amin Shah Omar Shah; Ex P Affin Bank Bhd [2008] 8 MLJ 125; [2008] 9 CLJ 772; [2008] 3 MLRH 164 12. Re Daljit Kaur Harjan Singh; Ex P Perbadanan Pengurusan Ixora [2015] 8 CLJ 573; [2016] 1 MLRH 152; [2015] 4 AMR 174 S/N VxqIUZJ8tkm7A8xEaZTy1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NOMBOR: JA-29NCC-648-10/2022 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan BANTAHAN AWAL JC Isu Pertama: JC tidak melengkapkan kesemua tindakan pelaksanaan terhadap Syarikat Hawaii sebelum memulakan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD Isu Kedua: Afidavit Menentusahkan Petisyen tidak teratur KESIMPULAN Bertarikh: 16 Januari 2024 Pihak-pihak:

Tika 2.6.0

M-05-349-08/2019

PERAYU SAKINAH BINTI MUSTAPHA DAN 29 YANG LAIN RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Seksyen 55 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaaan Keganasan 2001 - Forfeiture of property upon prosecution for an offence - Seksyen 61(2) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaaan Keganasan 2001 - Bona fide Third Parties - Pihak-pihak telah berjaya mencapai suatu penyelesaian yang muktamad - Perintah Persetujuan direkodkan mengikut terma-terma dalam draf yang dikemukakan - Tempoh masa pembayaran tuntutan kepada Perayu-Perayu di perenggan lima (5) Perintah Persetujuan adalah empat (4) bulan daripada tarikh perintah

16/01/2024

YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin AbdullahYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=cce72f9b-6640-47fa-a459-8c36e8ca29ab&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: M-05-349-08/2019 ANTARA SAKINAH BINTI MUSTAPHA & 29 YANG LAIN -PERAYU-PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA - RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Di Melaka Dalam Negeri Melaka Permohonan Jenayah No: MA-44-17-10/2018 Antara Sakinah Binti Mustapha & 29 Yang Lain - Perayu-Perayu Dan PendakwaRaya - Responden] 16/01/2024 11:43:28 M-05-349-08/2019 Kand. 49 S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: M-09-62-02/2019 ANTARA YEN KIM POK & 140 YANG LAIN - PERAYU-PERAYU DAN PENDAKWARAYA - RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Di Melaka Dalam Negeri Melaka Rayuan Jenayah No: MA-42(Ors)-1-01/2018) Antara Yen Kim Pok & 140 Yang Lain - Pemohon - Pemohon Dan PendakwaRaya - Responden] Didengar Bersama S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: M-09-65-02/2019 ANTARA MFR COMTECH RESOURCES SDN BHD - PERAYU-PERAYU DAN PENDAKWARAYA - RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Di Melaka Dalam Negeri Melaka Rayuan Jenayah No: MA-42(Ors)-1-01/2018) Antara MFR Comtech Resources Sdn Bhd - Pemohon - Pemohon Dan PendakwaRaya - Responden] S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 KORAM: HADHARIAH BIN SYED ISMAIL, HMR AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, HMR AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, HMR PENGHAKIMAN Mukadimah [1] Terdapat tiga Notis Rayuan berasingan yang difailkan di hadapan Mahkamah Rayuan ini terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Melaka di mana Hakim yang bijaksana pada 29/1/2019 dan 1/8/2019 telah membenarkan rayuan Perayu/Pendakwa Raya dan mengenepikan perintah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana memerintahkan harta- harta yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual Warta Kerajaan Persekutuan yang menjadi hal pertuduhan diserahkan hak kepada Responden-Responden dilucuthak kepada Kerajaan Malaysia. [2] Butiran terperinci bagi ketiga-tiga rayuan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: (a) R39 M-05-349-08/2019 Sakinah Binti Mustapha Dan 29 Yang Lain v. Pendakwa Raya; (b) R40 M-09-62-02/2019 Yen Kim Pok & 140 Yang Lain v. Pendakwa Raya; S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (c) R41 M-09-65-02/2019 MFR Comtech Resources Sdn Bhd v. Pendakwa Raya. [3] Tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan tersebut, Responden- Responden/Penuntut-Penuntut Ketiga ini telah menfailkan rayuan mereka masing-masing di Mahkamah Rayuan. [4] Oleh kerana ketiga-tiga rayuan ini adalah berkaitan, maka kami akan hanya menyediakan satu alasan penghakiman sahaja untuk ketiga- tiga rayuan ini. Fakta Kes Secara Ringkas [R39 M-05-349-08/2019] [5] Mohd Riezuan bin Jalil (Tertuduh Pertama) telah dituduh di Mahkamah Sesyen Melaka di atas satu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 25(1) Akta Bank dan lnstitusi Kewangan 1989 atas kesalahan menerima deposit daripada orang awam tanpa satu lesen yang sah di bawah seksyen 6(4) Akta yang sama. [6] Selain daripada itu, Tertuduh Pertama juga telah dituduh di atas 168 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 4(1) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaaan Keganasan 2001 [613]. [7] Manakala Basri bin Samsudin (Tertuduh Kedua) juga telah dituduh di atas satu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 25(1) Akta Bank dan lnstitusi Kewangan 1989 atas kesalahan menerima deposit daripada orang awam tanpa satu lesen yang sah di bawah seksyen 6(4) Akta yang sama. S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [8] Selain daripada itu, Tertuduh Kedua juga telah dituduh di atas 68 pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 4(1) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaaan Keganasan 2001[613]. [9] Kedua-dua Tertuduh ini merupakan rakan kongsi perniagaan Hitect Objective Enterprise (HTO) yang menjalankan urusan jual beli langganan kad pra bayar. [10] Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di atas pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 25(1) Akta Bank dan lnstitusi Kewangan 1989 dan kesemua pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 4(1) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaaan Keganasan 2001[613]. [11] Bagi prosiding perlucutan harta, apabila terdapat pendakwaan di bawah seksyen 55 Akta 613 dan dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 61(2) Akta yang sama, maka yang membuat perintah pelucuthakan hendaklah menyebabkan suatu notis dalam Warta dibuat untuk memanggil mana- mana pihak ketiga yang mempunyai sebarang kepentingan terhadap harta yang terkandung dalam notis itu untuk menunjukkan sebab mengapa harta itu tidak boleh dilucuthakkan. [12] Notis kepada pihak ketiga telah diwartakan pada 6/11/2012 di mana harta yang terlibat di dalam prosiding ini adalah sepertimana yang terdapat di dalam Warta Notis kepada pihak ketiga. [13] Terdapat lapan (8) orang penuntut pihak ketiga yang menuntut untuk mendapatkan kembali wang yang telah dibayar oleh mereka S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 kepada HTO bagi urusan jual beli dan langganan kad pra bayar mengikut jumlah masing-masing. Perbicaraan berkenaan harta-harta tersebut telah bermula pada 4/4/2016 dan berakhir pada 1/8/2017. [14] Di akhir perbicaraan, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana telah memutuskan agar kesemua harta yang disita seperti di dalam Warta dikembalikan kepada Penuntut Pihak Ketiga. [15] Tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan tersebut, Pendakwa Raya telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan yang masing-masing bertarikh 12/2/2017 dan satu lagi notis rayuan bertarikh 8/1/2018 di Mahkamah Tinggi Melaka. Dalam masa yang sama pihak pendakwaan juga telah memfailkan Permohonan Penangguhan Pelaksanaan Hukuman terhadap perintah yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen tersebut. [16] Pada 21/9/2019, Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan rayuan Pendakwa Raya terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen dan membatalkan permohonan penangguhan perlaksanaan hukuman yang telah difailkan oleh pihak pendakwaan kerana ianya telah menjadi akademik. [17] Tidak berpuashati, Penuntut-Penuntut Ketiga/Perayu menfailkan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan. [R40 M-09-62-02/2019 DiDengar Bersama R41 M-09-65-02/2019] [18] Kedua-dua Tertuduh telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di atas satu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 25(1) Akta Bank dan lnstitusi Kewangan 1989 dan kesemua pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 4(1) Akta S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaaan Keganasan 2001[613]. [19] Notis kepada pihak ketiga telah diwartakan pada 1/11/ 2012 di mana harta yang terlibat di dalam prosiding ini adalah sepertimana yang terdapat di dalam Warta Notis kepada pihak ketiga. [20] Terdapat 203 individu dan satu syarikat MFR Comtech Resources Sdn Bhd yang mempunyai urusan perniagaan dengan HTO telah menuntut sebagai pihak ketiga bagi mendapatkan kembali wang yang telah dibayar oleh mereka kepada HTO bagi urusan jual beli dan langganan kad pra bayar mengikut jumlah masing-masing. Perbicaraan berkenaan harta-harta berakhir pada 16/6/2017. [21] Di akhir perbicaraan, pada 8/12/2017, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana telah memutuskan agar kesemua harta yang disita seperti di dalam warta dikembalikan kepada kesemua Penuntut Pihak Ketiga. [22] Tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan tersebut, Pendakwa Raya telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan yang masing-masing bertarikh 12/2/2017 dan satu lagi Notis Rayuan bertarikh 8/1/2018 di Mahkamah Tinggi Melaka. [23] Pada 29/1/2019, Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan rayuan Pendakwa Raya terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen. Wang yang disita dilucutkanhak kepada Kerajaaan Malaysia. Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana diketepikan. Dikemukakan semula sebahagian alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana (kandungan 3 RR Jilid 1 m/s 12-36) sepertimana berikut: S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 “16. Setelah meneliti Nota Keterangan yang direkodkan dan alasan Penghakiman oleh Tuan HMS, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Responden telah gagal untuk memenuhi keperluan yang terkandung di dalam peruntukan seksyen 61(4)(a) hingga (e) AMLATFA secara ‘conjunctively’; 17. Responden bukanlah penuntut yang suci hati dan gagal membuktikan kelayakan mereka bagi menuntut wang yang disita atas imbangan kebarangkalian seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 61(4)(a) hingga (e) AMLATFA (rujuk kes PP v. Raja Noor Asma Raja Harun [2013] 5 CLJ 565); 18. Ini jelas dibuktikan berdasarkan keterangan saksi Responden sendiri apabila telah gagal mengambil langkah munasabah menentukan dan memastikan harta/wang tersebut bukanlah daripada apa-apa aktiviti haram. Dalam perkara ini, Responden mempunyai peluang dan ruang untuk membuat semakan atau pun merujuk HTO kepada Bank Negara bagi tujuan pengesahan namun jelas gagal berbuat demikian dan ia tidak dinafikan oleh Responden semasa prosiding tunjuk sebab di hadapan Hakim Bicara. Tambahan pula dalam kes ini ia melibatkan jumlah wang yang besar; 19. Penglibatan secara langsung Responden (penuntut-penuntut yang lain) sebagai pelabur kepada produk barangan keluaran Syarikat HTO ini adalah disifatkan sebagai mereka turut mempunyai pengambilan bahagian atau mempunyai penglibatan dalam keadaan predikat dan AMLATFA 2001; S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 20. Adalah menjadi tanggungjawab Responden untuk membuat semakan dan rujukan dengan Bank Negara kerana sebagai penuntut yang suci hati adalah menjadi tanggungjawabnya untuk melakukan segala yang munasabah untuk menghalang penggunaan wang tersebut bagi tujuan menyalahi undang- undang. Responden jelas gagal berbuat demikian; 21. Berdasarkan hal keadaan objektif kes, Mahkamah membuat inferens bahawa Responden bukanlah seorang yang suci hati memandangkan wang yang telah diserahkan kepada Responden telah digunakan untuk mengambil deposit tanpa lesen yang sememangnya menyalahi undang-undang; 22. Berdasarakan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah dengan ini membenarkan rayuan Perayu dan perintah pelepasan atau pemulangan semula bagi harta-harta yang disita sepertimana di dalam Warta Kerajaan Persekutuan P.0 (B) 365 bertarikh 6/11/2012 diketepikan; dan 23. Dengan itu Mahkamah menolak tuntutan Responden (203 penuntut lain) dan harta-harta tersebut yang telah disita dilucutkanhak kepada Kerajaan Malaysia di bawah subseksyen 56(2) AMLATFA. [24] Tidak berpuashati, Penuntut-Penuntut Ketiga/Perayu menfailkan Rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan. S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [R41 M-09-65-02/2019] [25] Notis kepada Pihak Ketiga telah diwartakan pada 1/11/2012 di mana harta yang terlibat di dalam prosiding ini adalah sepertimana yang terdapat di dalam Warta Notis kepada Pihak Ketiga. [26] Di akhir perbicaraan, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana telah memutuskan agar kesemua harta yang disita seperti di dalam warta dikembalikan kepada kesemua Penuntut Pihak Ketiga. [27] Tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan tersebut, Pendakwa Raya telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi Melaka. [28] Mahkamah Tinggi telah membenarkan rayuan Pendakwa Raya terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen. Wang yang disita dilucutkan hak kepada Kerajaaan Malaysia. Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana diketepikan. [29] Tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan tersebut, Penuntut Ketiga/Perayu menfailkan Rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan. Peruntukan Undang - Undang Berkaitan (a) Seksyen 55 Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaaan Keganasan 2001 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Forfeiture of property upon prosecution for an offence 55. (1) Subject to section 61, in any prosecution for an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence, the court shall make an order for the forfeiture of any property which is proved to be— (a) the subject-matter or evidence relating to the commission of such offence; (b) terrorist property; (c) the proceeds of an unlawful activity; or (d) the instrumentalities of an offence, where— (aa) the offence is proved against the accused; or (bb) the offence is not proved against the accused but the court is satisfied that— (i) the accused is not the true and lawful owner of such property; and (ii) no other person is entitled to the property as a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration. S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (2) Where the offence is proved against the accused but the property referred to in subsection (1) has been disposed of diminished in value, or cannot be traced, the court shall order the accused to pay as a penalty a sum which is equivalent to, in the opinion of the court, the value of the property, and any such penalty shall be recoverable as a civil debt due to the Government of Malaysia and shall not be subject to any period of limitation prescribed by any written law. (3) In determining whether the property is— (a) the subject-matter or evidence relating to the commission of an offence under subsection 4(1) or a terrorism financing offence; (b) terrorist property; Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawfull Activities; (c) the proceeds of an unlawful activity; or (d) the instrumentalities of an offence, the court shall apply the standard of proof required in civil proceedings. (b) Seksyen 61(2) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaaan Keganasan 2001 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Bona fide Third Parties 61. (1) The provisions in this Part shall apply without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties. S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 (2) The court making the order of forfeiture under subsection 28L(1) or section 55 or the judge to whom an application is made Anti- Money Laundering, Anti-Terorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawfull Activities under subsection 28L(2) or 56(1) shall cause to be published a notice in the Gazette calling upon any third party who claims to have any interest in the property to attend before the court on the date specified in the notice to show cause as to why the property shall not be forfeited. (3) A third party’s lack of good faith may be inferred, by the court or an enforcement agency, from the objective circumstances of the case. (4) The court or enforcement agency shall return the property to the claimant when it is satisfied that— (a) the claimant has a legitimate legal interest in the property; (b) no participation, collusion or involvement with respect to the offence under subsection 4(1) or Part IVA, or a terrorism financing offence which is the object of the proceedings can be imputed to the claimant; (c) the claimant lacked knowledge and was not intentionally ignorant of the illegal use of the property, or if he had knowledge, did not freely consent to its illegal use; S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 (d) the claimant did not acquire any right in the property from a person proceeded against under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that any right was transferred for the purpose of avoiding the eventual subsequent forfeiture of the property; and (e) the claimant did all that could reasonably be expected to prevent the illegal use of the property Keputusan kami [30] Kesemua pihak-pihak telah berjaya mencapai suatu penyelesaian yang muktamad. [31] Keputusan sebulat suara. Perintah Persetujuan direkodkan mengikut terma-terma dalam draf yang dikemukakan dan tempoh masa pembayaran tuntutan kepada Perayu-Perayu di perenggan lima (5) Perintah Persetujuan adalah empat (4) bulan daripada tarikh perintah ini. Terma-terma penyelesaian yang terperinci adalah sepertimana yang terkandung di dalam perintah-perintah berikut: Perintah Persetujuan bagi R39 (Kandungan 48) ditandakan sebagai Lampiran A. “DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa: (a) Perayu-Perayu bersetuju menuntut hanya 50% daripada Jumlah Tuntutan sebagai amaun penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad; S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 (b) Jumlah Tuntutan akan diambiI daripada wang tunai yang disita sepertimana di dalam Warta P.U.(B) 365 bertarikh 1 November 2012; (c) Jumlah Tuntutan yang disokong dengan resit/dokumen sokongan yang berkaitan sahaja (sebagaimana di dalam Rekod Rayuan) akan diterima; (d) Jumlah Tuntutan juga akan ditolak dengan jumlah bayaran yang telah diperolehi oleh Perayu-Perayu dan pengiraan ini akan dibuat oleh pihak Bank Negara Malaysia; (e) Pembayaran Jumlah Tuntutan hendaklah dibuat kepada Perayu- Perayu dalam tempoh empat (4) bulan daripada tarikh Perintah ini; (f) Pembayaran Jumlah Tuntutan hendaklah dibayar ke dalam akaun pelanggan Tetuan Sahidawati Dollah & Co. Manakala Jumlah Tuntutan bagi Perayu- Perayu yang diwakili oleh Tetuan Mazhar & Co. hendaklah dibuat ke dalam akaun pelanggan Tetuan Sasila Basri & Co.; dan (g) Lebihan daripada wang tunai termasuk faedah yang dinyatakan di dalam Warta P.U.(B) 365 bertarikh 1 November 2012 hendaklah dilucuthakkan kepada Kerajaan Malaysia. Perintah Persetujuan bagi R40 (Kandungan 59) ditandakan sebagai Lampiran B. DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa: S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (a) Perayu-Perayu bersetuju menuntut hanya 40% daripada Jumlah Tuntutan sebagai amaun penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad; (b) Jumlah Tuntutan akan diambiI daripada wang tunai yang disita sepertimana di dalam Warta P.U.(B) 365 bertarikh 1 November 2012; (c) Jumlah Tuntutan yang disokong dengan resit/dokumen sokongan yang berkaitan sahaja (sebagaimana di dalam Rekod Rayuan) akan diterima; (d) Jumlah Tuntutan juga akan ditolak dengan jumlah bayaran yang telah diperolehi oleh Perayu-Perayu dan pengiraan ini akan dibuat oleh pihak Bank Negara Malaysia; (e) Pembayaran Jumlah Tuntutan hendaklah dibuat kepada Perayu- Perayu dalam tempoh empat (4) bulan daripada tarikh Perintah ini; (f) Pembayaran Jumlah Tuntutan hendaklah dibayar ke dalam akaun pelanggan firma masing-masing.; dan (g) Lebihan daripada wang tunai termasuk faedah yang dinyatakan di dalam Warta P.U.(B) 365 bertarikh 1 November 2012 hendaklah dilucuthakkan kepada Kerajaan Malaysia. Perintah Persetujuan bagi R41 (Kandungan 60) ditandakan sebagai Lampiran C. DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa: S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 (a) Perayu-Perayu bersetuju menuntut hanya 40% daripada Jumlah Tuntutan sebagai amaun penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad; (b) Jumlah Tuntutan akan diambiI daripada wang tunai yang disita sepertimana di dalam Warta P.U.(B) 365 bertarikh 1 November 2012; (c) Jumlah Tuntutan yang disokong dengan resit/dokumen sokongan yang berkaitan sahaja (sebagaimana di dalam Rekod Rayuan) akan diterima; (d) Jumlah Tuntutan juga akan ditolak dengan jumlah bayaran yang telah diperolehi oleh Perayu-Perayu dan pengiraan ini akan dibuat oleh pihak Bank Negara Malaysia; (e) Pembayaran Jumlah Tuntutan hendaklah dibuat kepada Perayu- Perayu dalam tempoh empat (4) bulan daripada tarikh Perintah ini; (f) Pembayaran Jumlah Tuntutan hendaklah dibayar ke dalam akaun pelanggan firma masing-masing.; dan (g) Lebihan daripada wang tunai termasuk faedah yang dinyatakan di dalam Warta P.U.(B) 365 bertarikh 1 November 2012 hendaklah dilucuthakkan kepada Kerajaan Malaysia. Tarikh: 14 Disember 2023 - Sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Kaunsel Bagi Perayu : Sahidawati Binti Dollah Sasila Binti Basri, Umi Kalsum Binti Harun [Sasila Basri & Co.] Bagi Responden : Norzilati Izhani Binti Zainal@Zainol [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya] S/N my/nzEBmkekWYw26Mopqw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24C-92-06/2023

PEMOHON PESTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 2. ) SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

Enclosure 1. In the Originating Summons (“OS”) filed herein, the Plaintiff is, in accordance with section 11(1) (a) and (b) as well as section 50 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and order 69 and 29 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 51 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 vide enclosure 1 (“Enclosure 1”).

16/01/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ae83e29d-f086-48a6-a0fd-bc0865860678&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - Pestech v Sykt Pemb YTL. Erinford (1) ( - appeal (1) (2) 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-92-06/2023 Dalam perkara Surat Award (No. SIPYLETTER-003498) bertarikh 24.8.2018 yang dimasuki antara Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd dan Pestech Technology Sdn Bhd; Dan Dalam perkara Bon Pelaksanaan bertarikh 24.10.2018 no. rujukan 99060BGU6268793 yang dikeluarkan oleh Maybank Islamic Berhad kepada Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd seperti yang dipinda oleh suratsurat Maybank Islamic Berhad kepada Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd bertarikh 22.11.2018, 28.12.2018 dan 14.4.2021; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b) dan 50 Akta Timbang Tara 2005; Dan 16/01/2024 10:43:24 WA-24C-92-06/2023 Kand. 106 S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dalam perkara Aturan 69 Kaedahkaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 29, kaedah 1 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 51 Akta Relief Spesifik 1950 ANTARA PESTECH SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 1075814-X) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 787435-M) 2. SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 12479-V) …DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [1] In the Originating Summons (“OS”) filed herein, the Plaintiff is, in accordance with section 11(1) (a) and (b) as well as section 50 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and order 69 and 29 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 51 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 vide enclosure 1 (“Enclosure 1”) seeking for (i) an injunction to restrain amongst others the 1st Defendant (“D1”), their directors, managers, officers, employees, servants, agents or otherwise from making payment of RM39,900,000 or a sum equivalent to it in any manner to the 2nd Defendant (“D2”) under the Performance Bond dated 24.10.2018 reference no. 99060BGU6268793 issued by D1 to D2 (“Performance Bond”) pending the disposal of the arbitral proceedings which has been commenced by the Plaintiff against D2 (“Arbitral Proceedings”) pending the parties resolving the dispute through mutual consultation and after the Management Committee has provided an opinion under Condition 4.1 of the conditions of Sub-Contract. (ii) An injunction against the 2nd Defendant (“D2”) to restrain D2 the whether by themselves, or their directors, managers, officers, employees, servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from receiving and/or utilizing any monies that may have been received by the D2 from D1 under the Performance Bond pending the disposal of the Arbitral Proceedings which will be initiated under Condition 41.2 of the Conditions of Sub-Contract if parties are unable to settle the dispute through mutual consultation and after the Management Committee have provided an opinion pursuant to Condition 41.1 of the Conditions of Sub-Contract; S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [2] Briefly, the grounds in support of the OS are as follows: - a. D1 received a call / demand vide D2’s letter dated 7.6.2023 for the total sum of RM39,900,000.00 under the Performance Bond (“Demand”) which was only served by D2 to D1 on 8.6.2023. b. The Demand was made based on the termination clause under Condition 39 of the Conditions of Sub-Contract, in which D2 had issued a purported Notice of Termination for Default (“Notice of Termination”) to the Plaintiff on 10.5.2023, which the Plaintiff has disputed vide its letter dated 9.6.2023. c. The Plaintiff had delayed responding to D2’s Notice of Termination as the parties were in discussion with a view to amicably resolve the matter in which there have been several meetings and discussions that were ongoing with regards to various options on how to proceed with the completion of the Works. d. The aforesaid Demand is without basis and is fraudulent and/or unconscionable for the following reasons: - (i) The Plaintiff had at all material times carried out the Works regularly and diligently pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Sub-Contract and in compliance with the instructions given by D2. (ii) The purported termination of the Sub-Contract is unlawful as it does not comply with the Sub-Contract as the Plaintiff is not insolvent. (iii) D2 had wrongfully terminated the Sub-Contract by way of a Notice of Termination dated 10.5.2023. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (iv) D2’s mala fide actions and conducts caused the Plaintiff to face Negative Project Cash Flow, details of which are as follows: - (a) D2 had demanded the Plaintiff to purchase all the Materials and directed that all Materials must be purchased and placed on the Site, on the understanding that the Plaintiff would be fully compensated for the same. (b) D2 informed the Plaintiff that they will only be able to fully compensate the Materials provided the warehouse in which the Materials were stored has been approved as being part of the Project Site. (c) D2 has not compensated the Plaintiff to-date despite knowing that the Plaintiff’s warehouse had been designated as being part of the Project Site back in 27.2.2020. (d) D2 had requested the Plaintiff to carry out scope of works that is not within the Plaintiff’s original scope of work namely the wiring works on migrated track, in which D2 had also wanted the Plaintiff to increase manpower and machineries to do the same. (v) The purported termination of the Sub-Contract was motivated by bad faith as the Plaintiff had issued a letter dated 9.5.2023 claiming for the Materials delivered and stored at the Taman Emas Warehouse as the same was designated as being part of the Project Site since 27.2.2020. (vi) D2 had proceeded unnecessarily to make a call / demand on the Performance Bond despite the fact that the Plaintiff has not in any way failed to execute the Sub-Contract or S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 commit any breach of our obligations thereunder which warrants a call / demand on the Performance Bond. (vii) D2 made a call / demand for the entire Bonded Amount despite the fact that D2 had never previously notified, let alone demanded, the Plaintiff of any amounts to be paid by the Plaintiff to D2. (viii) D2 has failed to certify the proper value of works done, wherein the shortfall of the amounts claimed and certified would amount to the sum in the region of RM26,585,346.00. (ix) D2 entirely disregarded the fact that as at 10.5.2023, there was total retention sum of RM20,000,000 held by D2 which provided sufficient security for D2. (x) D2 had failed to provide the appropriate extensions of time until 10.6.2024 and delayed the Sub-Contract Works for a substantial period of time through no fault of the Plaintiff. (xi) D2 has failed to make payment of the prolongation cost by way of loss and expense. (xii) D2 did not give any prior notice to the Plaintiff of D2’s intention to call / demand on the Performance Bond and also did not notify the Plaintiff at the time when the call / demand was made. (xiii) D2’s call / demand on the Performance Bond is fraudulent and/or unconscionable. (xiv) D2 has not complied with the conditions of the Performance Bond in that the Plaintiff has not failed to perform its obligations under the Sub-Contract. (xv) In any case, the Plaintiff is not in breach of the Sub-Contract but rather the 2nd Defendant is. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 e. As such, the Plaintiff prays for injunctive reliefs to restrain D1 from making any payment to D2 under the Performance Bond and to restrain D2 from receiving and/or utilizing any monies that may have been received by D2 from D1 under the Performance Bond. f. This application is made pending the disposal of the Arbitral Proceedings. [3] The inter partes hearing of the ex parte application under enclosure 2 (“Enclosure 2”) for the like prayers in Enclosure 1 save that the prayers for the injunction therein were only up to the disposal of Enclosure 1 herein is also fixed for decision together with Enclosure 1. Background Facts [4] The Plaintiff is the sub-contractor for the design, construction, supply, installation, completion, testing, commissioning, and maintenance for the “Electrification Systems of the Electrified Double Track from Gemas to Johor Bahru” project. D2 is the Main Sub-Contractor. [5] The Plaintiff has alleged that it has carried out its works and submitted interim progress claims to D2. [6] The original date of completion of the Project was on 1.4.2021. There have been four EOTs granted by D2 revising the completion date to 1.6.2023, as follows: (i) EOT 1 was granted till 29.4.2022; (ii) EOT 1 was granted till 1.3.2023; (iii) EOT 1 was granted till 1.4.2023; and S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (iv) EOT 1 was granted till 1.5.2023 and extended vide letter dated 15.4.2023 till 1.6.2023. [7] D2 has been granted EOT until June 2025 which included some of the Plaintiff’s scope of work. As such, the Plaintiff contends that it should similarly be entitled to such corresponding EOT. [8] The Performance Bond is valid till 29.4.2027, or in the case of termination under Condition 39.2 of the COC, 6 months after the date of termination which will be 9.11.2023. [9] It is alleged by the Plaintiff that at the request of D2 and representation that the Plaintiff will be fully compensated for the Materials purchased and placed at the Taman Emas Warehouse, and claims that it had incurred significant costs out of pocket to purchase the Materials which are placed at the Taman Emas Warehouse in 2019. [10] It is alleged by the Plaintiff that on 27.2.2020, the MO approved the Taman Emas Warehouse as being part of the Project Site, and since May 2020, D2 has been attending joint site valuations with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and ICC at the Taman Emas Warehouse for purposes of verifying D2’s progress claims to MOT which included the Materials. [11] It is further alleged by the Plaintiff that D2 admitted that it was aware of said MOT approval at least since 17.9.2020 but at no point in time did D2 inform the Plaintiff of said approval. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [12] The Plaintiff contends that it became suspicious of the status of the Taman Emas Warehouse around September 2020, and as such the Plaintiff repeatedly followed up with D2 on the MOT’s approval of said warehouse. D2 has by way of its letter dated 3.12.2020 categorically denied any such approval by MOT. [13] On or around April 2023, it is alleged by the Plaintiff that by way of D2’s email of 4.5.2023 (where a copy of the MOT’s approval dated 27.2.2020 was attached to the email), it was confirmed that the Taman Emas Warehouse had been designated as part of the Project Site on 27.2.2020. [14] The Plaintiff subsequently issued a letter on 9.5.2023 demanding for payment of RM15,516,443.75 being full compensation of Materials stored at the Taman Emas Warehouse and reserved its rights to claim further amounts for breach of contractual obligations which led to the negative project Cash Flow. [15] D2 terminated the Contract on 10.5.2023 (one day immediately after the issuance of the Plaintiff’s demand for compensation of the Materials as set out above) on the basis of insolvency and purported events in 2020, 2022 alleged criminal action against an individual employed by the Plaintiff, and events relating to Additional Migrating Works which the parties had agreed to. [16] Post termination, parties were allegedly still discussing how the Plaintiff could continue the Works. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [17] On 9.6.2023, almost 1 month after the termination and in the midst of ongoing discussions between the parties, D2 had by way of a letter dated 7.6.2023, made a call/demand on the performance Bond for the entire Bonded Amount of RM39,900,000.00 on the purported basis that D2 had terminated the Contract with the Plaintiff. [18] Hence, the Plaintiff had thereafter applied for this Injunction herein. Issues, Analysis & Findings Law [19] The law in our jurisdiction as regards the grant of an injunction with regards a guarantee or performance bond has been laid out by our Apex Court in Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd v Malaysian Refining Co Sdn Bhd [2012] 4 MLJ 1 where. it was held “…in the case of on demand letters of guarantee or performance bonds the courts are now more willing to look beyond the fraud exception and consider unconscionability as a separate and independent ground to allow for a restraining order on the beneficiary.” [20] In essence this would mean that a person should not be permitted to use or insist upon his legal rights to take advantage of another's special vulnerability or misadventure for the unjust enrichment of himself quoting the Australian High Court decision of Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 which was referred to in Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd (supra). S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [21] To establish ‘unconscionability’ it was stated by the Federal Court Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd (supra) that: “[39] We are of the considered view that the 'seriously arguable and realistic inference' test as used by the learned judicial commissioner in Focal Asia is equally applicable to the extended exception of unconscionability. That test therefore needs to be applied to the relevant material facts before the court. The same test which results in a 'strong prima facie case' was utilised by the Court of Appeal at the intermediate appeal stage. And the Court of Appeal said this of the required burden now rested on the shoulder of Sumatec: As in the case of fraud, to establish 'unconscionability' there must be placed before the court manifest or strong evidence of some degree in respect of the alleged unconscionable conduct complained of, not a bare assertion (emphasis mine). Hence, the respondent has to satisfy the threshold of a seriously arguable case that the only realistic inference is the existence of 'unconscionability' which would basically mean establishing a strong prima facie case. In other words, the respondent has to place sufficient evidence before the court so as to enable the court to be satisfied, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt, that a case of 'unconscionability' being committed by the beneficiary (the appellant) has been established to an extent sufficient for the court to be minded to order injunction sought. This additional ground of 'unconscionability' should only be allowed with circumspect where events or conduct are of such degree such as to prick the conscience of a reasonable and sensible man.” [22] In Dunggon Jaya Sdn Bhd v Aeropod Sdn Bhd & Anor (And Another Appeal) [2019] 4 MLJ 466 the Court of Appeal had clarified that S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd (supra) had held that the test was whether sufficient evidence had been placed before the Court to be satisfied, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt, that ‘unconscionability’ has been established to the extent that the court was minded to make the order for an injunction. This was what was stated in Dunggon Jaya Sdn Bhd (supra): “[31] It is true, as contended by learned counsel for the first respondent, that these are unproven allegations by the appellant, but the test is not whether they are proven or otherwise but whether sufficient evidence had been placed before the court so as to enable the court to be satisfied, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt, that a case of unconscionability had been established to an extent that is sufficient for the court to be minded to order the injunction sought: Sumatec.” [23] Learned counsel for D2 has urged this Court to take into account inter alia that contractual disputes do not fall under the exception of ‘unconscionability’ as per Sumatec (supra) and Daya CMT Sdn Bhd v Yuk Tung Construction Sdn Bhd [2016] 1 LNS 649, Chengaljati Sdn Bhd v Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd & anor [2019] 1 LNS 549, Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad v HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 1158 , A.F.S. Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd V MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 2118, Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1000, MEB Technology Sdn Bhd v Petrotechnic Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] MLJU 725 cases and that the termination of the contract or sub-contract, as the case maybe, should be determined at the arbitration proceedings as per SME Majujaya Sdn S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Bhd & Anor v Pembinaan Mitrajaya Sdn Bhd & Anor [2018] MLJU 1303. [24] With regards the issue of ‘fraud’, it is trite that there must be clear and strong corroborative evidence of the same, see cases such as LEC Contractors (M) Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known as Lotteworld Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd) v Castle Inn Sdn Bhd & Anor [2000] 3 MLJ 339 and Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd v AmBank (M) Berhad and Anor [2009] MLJU 855. [25] The case of Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor bin Abdullah [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 MLJ 195 lays out the law with regards the test to be met in granting an injunction which are: i. whether there is any bona fide serious issue to be tried; ii. whether damages are an adequate remedy; and iii. where the balance of convenience lies. [26] My approach to the case before me must thus be based on the aforementioned Malaysian case authorities /precedents. [27] Accordingly, there must thus be a strong prima facie case established such that it pricks the conscience of a reasonable man, that the unconscionable conduct complained of has been placed before the Court or that an act of fraud has been occasioned, so as to satisfy this Court that an order for injunction ought to be granted. Unconscionability is also not limited to fraud per se as the sole and distinct basis or ground for an injunction of the type sought herein. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [28] With regards the law on a Performance Bond, I accept that the law on this is settled, in that that the Performance Bond is subject to the principle of autonomy i.e the document is to be kept separate from the underlying contract as per Mohamed Ariff J (as he then was ) in Focal Asia Sdn Bhd & Anor v Raja Noraini binti Raja Datuk Nong Chik & Anor [2009] 1 LNS 913, HC and the Federal Court in Sumatec (supra) as well as the High Court cases of Cobrain Holdings Sdn Bhd v Expertise International A&I (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 11 MLJ 339 and Gumusut Kakap Semi floating Production system (L) Ltd v Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd [2017] 1 LNS 945 where in the latter case, the learned judge therein, Lee Swee Seng J (now JCA) held that the courts should not interfere with the allocation of risks i.e where the Performance Bond is to operate as a risk allocation device pending final determination of the dispute between the parties, by importing a precondition into an unconditional on demand bond. [29] Having laid out the law in general, I will now turn to the issues and the facts of the case before me. Issues [30] There were lengthy arguments and exchange of affidavits by both the Plaintiff and D2 before this Court. In essence the Plaintiff submits that: 30.1 the termination of the Performance Bond was made in bad faith. 30.2 it was D2’s breach of the Contract which led to the negative cash flow. 30.3 there has been an over securitisation. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 30.4 the conduct post termination of D2 will show that there is fraud or unconscionable conduct on the part of D2. [31] D2’s position is briefly as follows: 31.1 the Performance Bond is an unconditional guarantee and is a distinct contract with D1. 31.2 a distinct forum is to determine the differences or dispute under the Sub-contract. 31.3 the Plaintiff cannot seek to re write the bargain of the distinct contract between D1 and D2 to be conflated with the limited exceptions of fraud / unconscionability to justify the injunction. 31.4 there should not be a mini trial on merits to determine the issue of unconscionability which burden rests on the Plaintiff. [32] In so far as D1 is concerned they have inter alia submitted that: - 32.1 irrespective of the merits of the Plaintiff’s claim against D2, no injunctive relief ought to be granted against D1 as the Performance Bond is an unconditional bond and; 32.2 D2 never had any notice of any fraud prior to the receipt of D2’s demand. Analysis of Factual Matrix [33] This Court will firstly deal with the salient parts of the factual matrix of the matter which I believe may play a part in deciding Enclosure 1 of the OS and which I might add has differences depending on the perspective of each party. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [34] From the records before me, I have observed that: a) there were 4 Extensions of Time (EOT) granted by D2 to the Plaintiff with the last EOT granted up to 1.6.2023. b) that the Sub-Contract was terminated by D2 on 10.5.2023. c) D2 was allegedly given an EOT by the Government to June 2025 of which D2 disputes but have not disclosed when they were given the EOT or the date of the EOT. [35] As regards the terms of the Performance Bond, I have after reading the same found that: i. it was originally, as seen from the 3rd amendment letter dated 14.4.2021 from D1 to D2, valid till 29.4.2027, but due to the termination of the said Sub-Contract between the parties, the Performance Bond will now expire 6 months from the termination date of the Sub-Contract i.e on 9.11.2023; ii. is by the express terms therein continuing, absolute, unconditional and irrevocable; iii. is payable upon first written demand up to and not exceeding the sum of RM39,900,000 and stating that in D2’s “sole and absolute judgment the sub-contractor has failed to observe or perform any of the terms, conditions or provisions of the Sub- Contract on its part to be observed or performed or the sub- S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 contractor’s employment has been terminated under section 39 of the Sub-Contract”; iv. is payable ‘irrespective of the occurrence of any circumstances which might otherwise constitute a legal or equitable defence’; v. shall not be affected or discharged by any dispute or disagreement whatsoever under or in relation to the Sub- Contract; vi. was called or demanded upon by D2 to D1 via a letter dated 7.6.2023. [36] I have also looked at the Notice of Termination dated 10.5.2023, at exhibit P-22, and find that it made inter alia reference to: 36.1 an insolvency event under the conditions of Sub-Contract limb I, f and g of the Condition 39.2 (A), repudiation by the Sub- contractor as per limb iii of the Condition 39.2 (A) and breach of representations, warranties or undertaking by reference to condition 48.14 as set out in limb viii of the Condition 39.2 (A); 36.2 D2 assisting the Plaintiff with its cash flow from July 2020 to August 2022, July 2022 to February 2023, and in August 2022; 36.3 Criminal charges under the Penal Code against the Executive chairman and CEO of the Plaintiff’s parent company, Pestech International Berhad as well as on one Paismanathan Govindasamy for alleged dishonest appropriation of property; S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 36.4 the Plaintiff’s default in payment to its sub-contractors; 36.5 failure to make payment to KTMB for renewal of permits resulting in Works at the migrated lines coming to a standstill; 36.6 the negative impact on the progress of Works due to the above; 36.7 the refusal to allow access to inspect and audit materials in the Taman Emas Warehouse. [37] I have further examined the call or demand dated 7.6.2023 on the Performance Bond made by D2 to D1, at exhibit P-28 and observed that it states: “Pursuant to the terms of the Bond, we hereby make a demand for a total sum of Ringgit Malaysia Thirty-Nine Million Nine Hundred Thousand only…as the sub-contractors…employment has been terminated under section 39 of the sub-contract .in accordance with the terms of the Bond, you are required to immediately pay the said sum to us by bankers cheque…” [38] It is also in the records that the Plaintiff had objected to the said Notice of Termination vide various emails dated 10.5.2023, 15.5.2023, 16.5.2023, 19.5.2023 and 30.5.2023 as shown in exhibit P-26, and to the call or demand dated 7.6.2023 on the Performance Bond by way of a letter dated 9.6.2023 to D1 in exhibit P-29 outlining therein inter alia the same issues raised in the OS herein. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [39] In dealing with the contention that the purported termination was made in bad faith, this Court was urged to consider that D2 did not make out a case for insolvency on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of the Notice of Termination and that the Plaintiff’s financial standing did not affect the progress of the Works, which was at an advanced stage of almost 70% completed. [40] The Plaintiff also submits that there were in fact no actual advance payments by D2 as alleged by D2 and attempted to aver as well as provide evidence to that effect such as D2’s failure to compensate them for the materials and D2’s instructions to carry additional migrating works which are not within the Plaintiff’s original scope of works. It is also alleged by the Plaintiff that the criminal charges mentioned in the Notice of Termination is no longer an issue as the said officers have been discharged and acquitted. [41] It was further contended that D2’s breach of the Sub-Contract had led to the Plaintiff’s negative project cash flow situation for example their failure to compensate the Plaintiff for the materials delivered on Site, wrongfully rejecting the Plaintiff’s EOT applications as well as claims for loss and expense thereto, and under certification of the Plaintiff’s works. [42] It was also argued by the Plaintiff that D2 was attempting after the Notice of Termination, via discussions between the parties, to secure an alternative commercial arrangement with the Plaintiff that was in their favour rather than adhering to the contract and that there was an over securitisation of the Plaintiff’s assets by D2 totalling RM52,416,121,31 presently held by the Plaintiff, not including the use S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 of the machineries which D2 is still retaining for use which are worth approximately around RM15 to RM 20 million. [43] Thus, the Plaintiff submits that it would be unjust and an over securitisation to allow D2 to call on the Performance Bond when there is no loss or damage suffered by D2 especially so when the Performance Bond was still valid for another 6 months i.e till 9.11.2023. [44] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff than urges this Court grant the injunction sought and to consider: a. the conduct post termination of D2 vis a vis the discussions between the parties, to secure an alternative commercial arrangement; b. that D2 was aware that the Plaintiff had a new shareholder, IJM Corporation Berhad who is D2’s competitor, and that D2 wanted to stifle the competition; c. the Notice of Termination had stated that they will notify the Plaintiff of a joint valuation date to assess the value of works done however none was forthcoming; d. that D2 had prematurely thereafter called on the Performance Bond; e. D2 was still retaining the Plaintiff’s retention monies and machineries; f. the sole motivation for terminating the sub-contract was that the Plaintiff had got hold of proof of D2 lying to the Plaintiff regarding the MOT approval re the Taman Emas Warehouse i.e the suppression of the MOT approval; S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 g. D2’s failure to fully compensate the Plaintiff for the materials. [45] In reply to the said contention that the purported termination was made in bad faith, D2 stated that based on the objective facts before this Court, it can be shown that D2 and/or the PIB Group were having internal cash follow problems. [46] D2 then submits that the allegation of materials housed in the Taman Emas Warehouse, the past advances allegedly taken, the EOT’s, loss and expense claims, the under certification, the additional migrating works, the progress of Works, the issue of the Plaintiff’s insolvency, the Notice of Termination, post termination discussions and the call on the Performance Bond are all disputes which either concern issues of fact and /or the interpretation of the Sub-Contract. [47] D2 has also attempted to clarify as well as give their version of the facts from their position and perspective via their various affidavits before this Court and in both their written and oral submissions before me. [48] Be that as it may, learned counsel for D2 argues that all of the above are issues which belong in the Arbitration. [49] It is pivotal in coming to my decision that this Court does not, at this stage, make any definite determination as whether the disputes or issues raised by the Plaintiff are meritorious or otherwise, as per the case of Dauphin Offshore Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v The Private Office Of HRH Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Bin Zayed Al S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Nahyan [2000] 1 SLR 657 and KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v Lukoil Uzbekistan Operating company LLC [2020] 1 LNS 479. [50] It is axiomatic that the burden to discharge the ‘strong prima facie ‘case is a high threshold which has to be fulfilled to establish ‘unconscionability’ and requires proof of ‘cogent evidence’. [51] I must also state that I have noted that the Plaintiff has highlighted that the Plaintiff has invoked the dispute resolution mechanism provided in the Sub-Contract but the parties have failed to resolve the dispute and that the Plaintiff was reserving its rights to refer the dispute to arbitration at the appropriate juncture and that the relief in the OS herein was primarily for the purpose of maintaining the status quo between the parties pending the matter being resolved or finally determined by arbitration. [52] After carefully considering and reviewing the respective evidence and submissions on all of these issues raised above, this Court holds that it cannot summarily, based on my reasons in my grounds herein, make any form of conclusion or decisions as to the averments and contentions made by the parties, in particular that of the Plaintiff herein of (i) D2 not making out a case for insolvency on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of the Notice of Termination (ii) the purported termination being made in bad faith including the fact that that D2 did not make out a case for insolvency on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of the Notice of Termination or (iii) whether D2’s breach of the Sub-Contract which led to the Plaintiff’s negative project cash flow situation, that (iv) D2 was attempting after the Notice of Termination, S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 via discussions between the parties, to secure a favourable alternative commercial arrangement with the Plaintiff. [53] As to the issue of whether there was an over securitisation of the Plaintiff’s assets by D2, I have looked at the facts before me in toto and I do not find that there is an over securitisation as contended by the Plaintiff. The basis of such an allegation appears to be that D2 has not made any assessment of their purported losses or damage at the time of the Notice of Termination or the demand on the Performance Bond and that there is no basis for the RM333 million claimed by D2 against the Plaintiff for the total costs which D2 has to incur to complete the Plaintiff’s Works. [54] The Plaintiff further states that D2 has retention sums of RM20 million and that from the balance due to the Plaintiff for material and equipment delivery as well as prolongation costs and under certification in IPC 51, there is a sum totalling RM52,416,121,31 presently held by the Plaintiff, not including the use of the machineries which D2 is still retaining for use which are worth approximately around RM15 to RM20 million. [55] I have looked at the cases cited by the Plaintiff in support of their assertion of over securitisation which consists of the Singapore case of JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 46 [2011] 2 SLR 47 and the Malaysian cases of SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ahmad Zaki Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 115; [2020] 9 MLJ 137 and Damai City Sdn Bhd v MCC Overseas (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2023] 1 MLJ 258 and find that JBE Properties Pte Ltd (supra) was decided on the fact that the bond therein was a true indemnity S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 performance bond and in SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd (supra) the case was decided on its facts which included that the bond was subject to the issuance of a written certificate, whereas in Damai City Sdn Bhd (supra)the decision of the Court of Appeal was made on the basis that the High Court having made a finding of an unconditional on demand bond, had failed to appreciate that the call was lawful. [56] Based on the preliminary facts before me, I do not at this juncture, find any over securitisation when there is prima facie the Plaintiff’s claim against D2 for RM333 million allegedly for the total costs which D2 has to incur to complete the Works, as per D2’s averment in its affidavit at enclosure 41, as compared to the Performance Bond value of RM39,900,000 and the alleged sum totalling RM52,416,121,31 presently held by the Plaintiff, which does not include the use of the machineries which D2 is still retaining for use which are worth approximately around RM15 to RM20 million. All in the sum purportedly held by D2 would appear to be insufficient to cover the costs of the completion of the Plaintiff’s remaining works. [57] I have consequently given due and proper regard of the application under section 11(1) (a) and (b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 under the OS before me and am of the view, from an objective perspective, that these issues are genuine disputes on issues of fact and of the Sub- Contract which I hold are more suitable and appropriately to be ventilated and decided in a different and proper forum i.e the arbitration proceedings where the merits of the case of each party is to be finally determined. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [58] I also hold that the as the said issues are not sufficient to come within the definition of fraud or unconscionable conduct as they are in fact disputes between the parties. Any form of remedies or recoveries or damages including that of the monies under the Performance Bond can be addressed and finally determined in the arbitration proceedings. I rely on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v Lukoil Uzbekistan Operating company LLC [2020] 1 LNS 479, [2020] MLJU 85 in which Mary Lim CJA (as she then was) had on behalf of the Court of Appeal with regards recognising unconscionability as a separate and independent ground” to allow for a restraining order on the beneficiary held inter alia: “[56] We agree with the respondent’s submissions that the threshold is high as the underlying disputes between the parties are essentially contractual in nature and those disputes are to be determined in arbitration. Thus, the court must guard against abuses of process where contractual disputes are elevated and disguised as claims of fraud or unconscionability.” [59] In any event I am fully aware, from the Companies Commission Malaysia search report that D2 is financially strong to make good the amount of the Performance Bond if so warranted and this has played partly in my decision herein. [60] I have considered and read the case of KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd (supra) which learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits in support of their contention that status quo pending arbitration should be preserved and find that the same was decided on the basis of the facts before that Court i.e that there were two underlying contracts S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 between the parties with both contracts contain provisions for guarantees of different total amounts but that the respondent had issued simultaneous demands on all three guarantees and that the challenge on the said guarantees were premised on amongst others as follows: i. the Guarantee for Refund of Advance Payment under the Gissar Main Contract was not an unconditional demand bond; ii. the calls were not in compliance with the terms of the Gissar Main Contract; iii. in any event, the call was only available upon termination and that did not arise in the instant case; iv. contemporaneous evidence and conduct of the parties, especially the respondent shows that there was no objective entitlement on the part of the respondent to make a call on the guarantees and that the respondent in fact knew that it was not entitled to make the call; v. in relation to the Khauzak Main Contract, the respondent had already agreed that following multiple extensions of the Warranty Guarantee with the last extension until 31.10.2017 pending the appellant attending to some miscellaneous matters under the warranty period, there would be no further extensions and the Warranty Guarantee would be returned to the appellant; vi. the fact of simultaneous calls on the guarantees issued under 2 unrelated and independent contracts. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [61] It is therefore clear in my view that KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd (supra) was decided based on its peculiar facts and that the same is not applicable in the case before me, as inter alia the Performance Bond herein before this Court is an unconditional demand bond and the call was properly made within the terms of the Performance Bond i.e the on the basis of the termination of the Sub-Contract under section 39 of the said Sub-Contract. [62] In any event, I am of the considered opinion it is not automatic that where there is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 the Court is obliged to maintain the status quo of the matter pending arbitration. The Court does, as was stated by the Court of Appeal in KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd (supra), maintain a measure of discretion of whether to grant the interim measure sought. The Court in doing so must consider whether such interim measure will aid, support or facilitate the arbitral proceedings, and that such measure will not impede the arbitral proceedings. [63] I am therefore, with the greatest of respect, not satisfied that the Plaintiff has shown a suitable argument for a strong prima facie case being established before this Court or that there is strong evidence before this Court that either fraud or unconscionability has been shown such as to convince this Court to grant an injunction to restrain payment on the Performance Bond as sought for in the OS. [64] Thus, I do find on a balance of probabilities that the Performance Bond, by its express terms, is an irrevocable and unconditional bond and that the the call or demand on the Performance Bond made by S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 D2 to D1 was, at least at this stage, shown to be prima facie properly made on the basis of the termination of the Sub-Contract under section 39 of the said Sub-Contract, albeit the termination of the Sub- Contract is disputed by the Plaintiff and the said demand on the Performance Bond is also contested by the Plaintiff. This would thus negate the contention that there was either fraud or unconscionability in the call made on the said Performance Bond. [65] This Court consequently notes that D2 had issued the LOD 1 day before termination, para 6.11. On this I find that this is also a ‘dispute’ and does not amount to strong cogent evidence which amounts to ‘unconscionability’. At its highest this would only show that D2 had hastily terminated the Sub-Contract without giving the Plaintiff the chance to respond to the LOD 1 and that this, together with the termination of the Sub-Contract, are consequently issues to be dealt with and decided in the arbitration proceedings. [66] I am reminded of the fact and do apply the principle that the Court is not to inquire into any breach of the underlying contract where the bond is a demand bond as per Karya Lagenda Sdn Bhd v Kejuteraan Bintai Kindenko Sdn Bhd & Anor [2008] 6 MLJ 636 where the Federal Court held: “The courts in an on demand type bond will not inquire into any breach in the underlying contract. This principle can be found in the case of Esso Petroleum Malaysia Inc v Kago Petroleum Sdn Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 149 where it was held that: Dealing further with the construction of the performance bond, since we found it was an on demand performance bond, this would, S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 in our view, make the present performance bonds independent of any underlying concept … On the type of such pure on demand performance bonds, the issuer should unquestionably pay on demand except in the case of fraud. Any argument or immediate disadvantage to the party who caused such a document to be in use is of no avail to the party who must face the risks of such unquestioned payment except where there is fraud; there was even no allegation of it, let alone any evidence of it.” [67] At the risk of repetition, the dispute on the termination of the Sub- Contract and the demand on the Performance Bond are matters to be determined at the arbitration proceedings. [68] I consequently reject the argument that the issuance of the Performance Bond comes from the requirement under the Contract as although this may be true to a certain extent, the law is clear that the Performance Bond is in itself fact an independent contract. The term “Performance Bond’ is in reality a commercial practice term only, which is not tied to the performance of the underlying contract, see AXA Insurance Pte Ltd v Chiu Teng Construction Co Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 62 [2021] 2 SLR 549, and that what is important is the terms of the Performance Bond which on the face of the Performance Bond herein, is a demand bond i.e payable on demand. Case against D1 [69] In so far as the action against D1, this Court holds in accordance with the case of Kejuruteraan Bintai Kidenko Sdn Bhd v Nam Fatt Construction Sdn Bhd & anor [2011] 7 CLJ 442 that no injunctive S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 relief can be obtained against D1, as the banker / issuer, where the demand on the Performance Bond has been held by this Court to be valid. The Court of Appeal had in Kejuruteraan Bintai Kidenko Sdn Bhd (supra) held as follows: “[71] The law on this issue is well-settled, locally as well as overseas: ie, if the performance bond is on demand and unconditional in nature, it is independent of any underlying contract between the parties; it is not open to the court to inquire into any breach of such underlying contract; and the bank/issuer is obliged to pay the beneficiary without any proof or condition, and notwithstanding any contestation or protest from any party. What is required is a valid demand in writing as stipulated in the guarantee agreement. Under such circumstances no injunctive relief can be granted to restrain the bank/issuer from making such payment to the beneficiary as demanded. The only exception to this rule is on the ground of fraud of which the bank/issuer has notice. The fraud must be on the performance bond itself and not the other documents. (see: Esso Petroleum Malaysia Inc. (supra); LEC Contractors (supra); and Patel Holdings Sdn Bhd Estet Pekebun Kecil Sdn Bhd & Anor [1989] 1 CLJ 229; [1989] 2 CLJ (Rep) 215). The question of "unconscionability" does not arise and should not be an exception to the rule.” Decision [70] In the circumstances, I do hold that the balance of convenience lies with D2 in upholding the Performance Bond and that there is no necessity to maintain the status quo as the requirements of fraud or unconscionability has not been proven to this Court. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [71] The issue of any adverse effect to the commercial and reputation of the Plaintiff is in my view wholly untenable as it is at most marginal. [72] This Court will accordingly not intervene to restrain the call on the Performance Bond herein and the action for an injunction against both D1 and D2 in both Enclosures 1 and 2 are therefore hereby dismissed with costs. Dated: 20th day of November 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Rodney Gomez, Aarthi Jeyarah, Candice Shih Yuh Ru and Koay Kai Lih [Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co.] COUNSEL FOR THE 1st DEFENDANT: Chia Oh Shen and Chan Yat Mun [Messrs Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill] COUNSEL FOR THE 2nd DEFENDANT: Felix Dorairaj, Logan Sabapathy, Chong Samuel-Man and Ariel Priyanka Francis [Messrs Dorairaj, Low & Teh] S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24C-92-06/2023

PEMOHON PESTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 2. ) SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

Enclosure 1. In the Originating Summons (“OS”) filed herein, the Plaintiff is, in accordance with section 11(1) (a) and (b) as well as section 50 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and order 69 and 29 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 51 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 vide enclosure 1 (“Enclosure 1”).

16/01/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ae83e29d-f086-48a6-a0fd-bc0865860678&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - Pestech v Sykt Pemb YTL. Erinford (1) ( - appeal (1) (2) 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-92-06/2023 Dalam perkara Surat Award (No. SIPYLETTER-003498) bertarikh 24.8.2018 yang dimasuki antara Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd dan Pestech Technology Sdn Bhd; Dan Dalam perkara Bon Pelaksanaan bertarikh 24.10.2018 no. rujukan 99060BGU6268793 yang dikeluarkan oleh Maybank Islamic Berhad kepada Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd seperti yang dipinda oleh suratsurat Maybank Islamic Berhad kepada Syarikat Pembenaan Yeoh Tiong Lay Sdn Bhd bertarikh 22.11.2018, 28.12.2018 dan 14.4.2021; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b) dan 50 Akta Timbang Tara 2005; Dan 16/01/2024 10:43:24 WA-24C-92-06/2023 Kand. 106 S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dalam perkara Aturan 69 Kaedahkaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 29, kaedah 1 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 51 Akta Relief Spesifik 1950 ANTARA PESTECH SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 1075814-X) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 787435-M) 2. SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 12479-V) …DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [1] In the Originating Summons (“OS”) filed herein, the Plaintiff is, in accordance with section 11(1) (a) and (b) as well as section 50 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and order 69 and 29 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 51 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 vide enclosure 1 (“Enclosure 1”) seeking for (i) an injunction to restrain amongst others the 1st Defendant (“D1”), their directors, managers, officers, employees, servants, agents or otherwise from making payment of RM39,900,000 or a sum equivalent to it in any manner to the 2nd Defendant (“D2”) under the Performance Bond dated 24.10.2018 reference no. 99060BGU6268793 issued by D1 to D2 (“Performance Bond”) pending the disposal of the arbitral proceedings which has been commenced by the Plaintiff against D2 (“Arbitral Proceedings”) pending the parties resolving the dispute through mutual consultation and after the Management Committee has provided an opinion under Condition 4.1 of the conditions of Sub-Contract. (ii) An injunction against the 2nd Defendant (“D2”) to restrain D2 the whether by themselves, or their directors, managers, officers, employees, servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from receiving and/or utilizing any monies that may have been received by the D2 from D1 under the Performance Bond pending the disposal of the Arbitral Proceedings which will be initiated under Condition 41.2 of the Conditions of Sub-Contract if parties are unable to settle the dispute through mutual consultation and after the Management Committee have provided an opinion pursuant to Condition 41.1 of the Conditions of Sub-Contract; S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [2] Briefly, the grounds in support of the OS are as follows: - a. D1 received a call / demand vide D2’s letter dated 7.6.2023 for the total sum of RM39,900,000.00 under the Performance Bond (“Demand”) which was only served by D2 to D1 on 8.6.2023. b. The Demand was made based on the termination clause under Condition 39 of the Conditions of Sub-Contract, in which D2 had issued a purported Notice of Termination for Default (“Notice of Termination”) to the Plaintiff on 10.5.2023, which the Plaintiff has disputed vide its letter dated 9.6.2023. c. The Plaintiff had delayed responding to D2’s Notice of Termination as the parties were in discussion with a view to amicably resolve the matter in which there have been several meetings and discussions that were ongoing with regards to various options on how to proceed with the completion of the Works. d. The aforesaid Demand is without basis and is fraudulent and/or unconscionable for the following reasons: - (i) The Plaintiff had at all material times carried out the Works regularly and diligently pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Sub-Contract and in compliance with the instructions given by D2. (ii) The purported termination of the Sub-Contract is unlawful as it does not comply with the Sub-Contract as the Plaintiff is not insolvent. (iii) D2 had wrongfully terminated the Sub-Contract by way of a Notice of Termination dated 10.5.2023. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (iv) D2’s mala fide actions and conducts caused the Plaintiff to face Negative Project Cash Flow, details of which are as follows: - (a) D2 had demanded the Plaintiff to purchase all the Materials and directed that all Materials must be purchased and placed on the Site, on the understanding that the Plaintiff would be fully compensated for the same. (b) D2 informed the Plaintiff that they will only be able to fully compensate the Materials provided the warehouse in which the Materials were stored has been approved as being part of the Project Site. (c) D2 has not compensated the Plaintiff to-date despite knowing that the Plaintiff’s warehouse had been designated as being part of the Project Site back in 27.2.2020. (d) D2 had requested the Plaintiff to carry out scope of works that is not within the Plaintiff’s original scope of work namely the wiring works on migrated track, in which D2 had also wanted the Plaintiff to increase manpower and machineries to do the same. (v) The purported termination of the Sub-Contract was motivated by bad faith as the Plaintiff had issued a letter dated 9.5.2023 claiming for the Materials delivered and stored at the Taman Emas Warehouse as the same was designated as being part of the Project Site since 27.2.2020. (vi) D2 had proceeded unnecessarily to make a call / demand on the Performance Bond despite the fact that the Plaintiff has not in any way failed to execute the Sub-Contract or S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 commit any breach of our obligations thereunder which warrants a call / demand on the Performance Bond. (vii) D2 made a call / demand for the entire Bonded Amount despite the fact that D2 had never previously notified, let alone demanded, the Plaintiff of any amounts to be paid by the Plaintiff to D2. (viii) D2 has failed to certify the proper value of works done, wherein the shortfall of the amounts claimed and certified would amount to the sum in the region of RM26,585,346.00. (ix) D2 entirely disregarded the fact that as at 10.5.2023, there was total retention sum of RM20,000,000 held by D2 which provided sufficient security for D2. (x) D2 had failed to provide the appropriate extensions of time until 10.6.2024 and delayed the Sub-Contract Works for a substantial period of time through no fault of the Plaintiff. (xi) D2 has failed to make payment of the prolongation cost by way of loss and expense. (xii) D2 did not give any prior notice to the Plaintiff of D2’s intention to call / demand on the Performance Bond and also did not notify the Plaintiff at the time when the call / demand was made. (xiii) D2’s call / demand on the Performance Bond is fraudulent and/or unconscionable. (xiv) D2 has not complied with the conditions of the Performance Bond in that the Plaintiff has not failed to perform its obligations under the Sub-Contract. (xv) In any case, the Plaintiff is not in breach of the Sub-Contract but rather the 2nd Defendant is. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 e. As such, the Plaintiff prays for injunctive reliefs to restrain D1 from making any payment to D2 under the Performance Bond and to restrain D2 from receiving and/or utilizing any monies that may have been received by D2 from D1 under the Performance Bond. f. This application is made pending the disposal of the Arbitral Proceedings. [3] The inter partes hearing of the ex parte application under enclosure 2 (“Enclosure 2”) for the like prayers in Enclosure 1 save that the prayers for the injunction therein were only up to the disposal of Enclosure 1 herein is also fixed for decision together with Enclosure 1. Background Facts [4] The Plaintiff is the sub-contractor for the design, construction, supply, installation, completion, testing, commissioning, and maintenance for the “Electrification Systems of the Electrified Double Track from Gemas to Johor Bahru” project. D2 is the Main Sub-Contractor. [5] The Plaintiff has alleged that it has carried out its works and submitted interim progress claims to D2. [6] The original date of completion of the Project was on 1.4.2021. There have been four EOTs granted by D2 revising the completion date to 1.6.2023, as follows: (i) EOT 1 was granted till 29.4.2022; (ii) EOT 1 was granted till 1.3.2023; (iii) EOT 1 was granted till 1.4.2023; and S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (iv) EOT 1 was granted till 1.5.2023 and extended vide letter dated 15.4.2023 till 1.6.2023. [7] D2 has been granted EOT until June 2025 which included some of the Plaintiff’s scope of work. As such, the Plaintiff contends that it should similarly be entitled to such corresponding EOT. [8] The Performance Bond is valid till 29.4.2027, or in the case of termination under Condition 39.2 of the COC, 6 months after the date of termination which will be 9.11.2023. [9] It is alleged by the Plaintiff that at the request of D2 and representation that the Plaintiff will be fully compensated for the Materials purchased and placed at the Taman Emas Warehouse, and claims that it had incurred significant costs out of pocket to purchase the Materials which are placed at the Taman Emas Warehouse in 2019. [10] It is alleged by the Plaintiff that on 27.2.2020, the MO approved the Taman Emas Warehouse as being part of the Project Site, and since May 2020, D2 has been attending joint site valuations with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and ICC at the Taman Emas Warehouse for purposes of verifying D2’s progress claims to MOT which included the Materials. [11] It is further alleged by the Plaintiff that D2 admitted that it was aware of said MOT approval at least since 17.9.2020 but at no point in time did D2 inform the Plaintiff of said approval. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [12] The Plaintiff contends that it became suspicious of the status of the Taman Emas Warehouse around September 2020, and as such the Plaintiff repeatedly followed up with D2 on the MOT’s approval of said warehouse. D2 has by way of its letter dated 3.12.2020 categorically denied any such approval by MOT. [13] On or around April 2023, it is alleged by the Plaintiff that by way of D2’s email of 4.5.2023 (where a copy of the MOT’s approval dated 27.2.2020 was attached to the email), it was confirmed that the Taman Emas Warehouse had been designated as part of the Project Site on 27.2.2020. [14] The Plaintiff subsequently issued a letter on 9.5.2023 demanding for payment of RM15,516,443.75 being full compensation of Materials stored at the Taman Emas Warehouse and reserved its rights to claim further amounts for breach of contractual obligations which led to the negative project Cash Flow. [15] D2 terminated the Contract on 10.5.2023 (one day immediately after the issuance of the Plaintiff’s demand for compensation of the Materials as set out above) on the basis of insolvency and purported events in 2020, 2022 alleged criminal action against an individual employed by the Plaintiff, and events relating to Additional Migrating Works which the parties had agreed to. [16] Post termination, parties were allegedly still discussing how the Plaintiff could continue the Works. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [17] On 9.6.2023, almost 1 month after the termination and in the midst of ongoing discussions between the parties, D2 had by way of a letter dated 7.6.2023, made a call/demand on the performance Bond for the entire Bonded Amount of RM39,900,000.00 on the purported basis that D2 had terminated the Contract with the Plaintiff. [18] Hence, the Plaintiff had thereafter applied for this Injunction herein. Issues, Analysis & Findings Law [19] The law in our jurisdiction as regards the grant of an injunction with regards a guarantee or performance bond has been laid out by our Apex Court in Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd v Malaysian Refining Co Sdn Bhd [2012] 4 MLJ 1 where. it was held “…in the case of on demand letters of guarantee or performance bonds the courts are now more willing to look beyond the fraud exception and consider unconscionability as a separate and independent ground to allow for a restraining order on the beneficiary.” [20] In essence this would mean that a person should not be permitted to use or insist upon his legal rights to take advantage of another's special vulnerability or misadventure for the unjust enrichment of himself quoting the Australian High Court decision of Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 which was referred to in Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd (supra). S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [21] To establish ‘unconscionability’ it was stated by the Federal Court Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd (supra) that: “[39] We are of the considered view that the 'seriously arguable and realistic inference' test as used by the learned judicial commissioner in Focal Asia is equally applicable to the extended exception of unconscionability. That test therefore needs to be applied to the relevant material facts before the court. The same test which results in a 'strong prima facie case' was utilised by the Court of Appeal at the intermediate appeal stage. And the Court of Appeal said this of the required burden now rested on the shoulder of Sumatec: As in the case of fraud, to establish 'unconscionability' there must be placed before the court manifest or strong evidence of some degree in respect of the alleged unconscionable conduct complained of, not a bare assertion (emphasis mine). Hence, the respondent has to satisfy the threshold of a seriously arguable case that the only realistic inference is the existence of 'unconscionability' which would basically mean establishing a strong prima facie case. In other words, the respondent has to place sufficient evidence before the court so as to enable the court to be satisfied, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt, that a case of 'unconscionability' being committed by the beneficiary (the appellant) has been established to an extent sufficient for the court to be minded to order injunction sought. This additional ground of 'unconscionability' should only be allowed with circumspect where events or conduct are of such degree such as to prick the conscience of a reasonable and sensible man.” [22] In Dunggon Jaya Sdn Bhd v Aeropod Sdn Bhd & Anor (And Another Appeal) [2019] 4 MLJ 466 the Court of Appeal had clarified that S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd (supra) had held that the test was whether sufficient evidence had been placed before the Court to be satisfied, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt, that ‘unconscionability’ has been established to the extent that the court was minded to make the order for an injunction. This was what was stated in Dunggon Jaya Sdn Bhd (supra): “[31] It is true, as contended by learned counsel for the first respondent, that these are unproven allegations by the appellant, but the test is not whether they are proven or otherwise but whether sufficient evidence had been placed before the court so as to enable the court to be satisfied, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt, that a case of unconscionability had been established to an extent that is sufficient for the court to be minded to order the injunction sought: Sumatec.” [23] Learned counsel for D2 has urged this Court to take into account inter alia that contractual disputes do not fall under the exception of ‘unconscionability’ as per Sumatec (supra) and Daya CMT Sdn Bhd v Yuk Tung Construction Sdn Bhd [2016] 1 LNS 649, Chengaljati Sdn Bhd v Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd & anor [2019] 1 LNS 549, Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad v HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad & Ors [2019] 1 LNS 1158 , A.F.S. Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd V MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 2118, Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Turnpike Synergy Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1000, MEB Technology Sdn Bhd v Petrotechnic Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor [2023] MLJU 725 cases and that the termination of the contract or sub-contract, as the case maybe, should be determined at the arbitration proceedings as per SME Majujaya Sdn S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Bhd & Anor v Pembinaan Mitrajaya Sdn Bhd & Anor [2018] MLJU 1303. [24] With regards the issue of ‘fraud’, it is trite that there must be clear and strong corroborative evidence of the same, see cases such as LEC Contractors (M) Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known as Lotteworld Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd) v Castle Inn Sdn Bhd & Anor [2000] 3 MLJ 339 and Itramas Technology Sdn Bhd v AmBank (M) Berhad and Anor [2009] MLJU 855. [25] The case of Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor bin Abdullah [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 MLJ 195 lays out the law with regards the test to be met in granting an injunction which are: i. whether there is any bona fide serious issue to be tried; ii. whether damages are an adequate remedy; and iii. where the balance of convenience lies. [26] My approach to the case before me must thus be based on the aforementioned Malaysian case authorities /precedents. [27] Accordingly, there must thus be a strong prima facie case established such that it pricks the conscience of a reasonable man, that the unconscionable conduct complained of has been placed before the Court or that an act of fraud has been occasioned, so as to satisfy this Court that an order for injunction ought to be granted. Unconscionability is also not limited to fraud per se as the sole and distinct basis or ground for an injunction of the type sought herein. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [28] With regards the law on a Performance Bond, I accept that the law on this is settled, in that that the Performance Bond is subject to the principle of autonomy i.e the document is to be kept separate from the underlying contract as per Mohamed Ariff J (as he then was ) in Focal Asia Sdn Bhd & Anor v Raja Noraini binti Raja Datuk Nong Chik & Anor [2009] 1 LNS 913, HC and the Federal Court in Sumatec (supra) as well as the High Court cases of Cobrain Holdings Sdn Bhd v Expertise International A&I (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 11 MLJ 339 and Gumusut Kakap Semi floating Production system (L) Ltd v Sabah Shell Petroleum Co Ltd [2017] 1 LNS 945 where in the latter case, the learned judge therein, Lee Swee Seng J (now JCA) held that the courts should not interfere with the allocation of risks i.e where the Performance Bond is to operate as a risk allocation device pending final determination of the dispute between the parties, by importing a precondition into an unconditional on demand bond. [29] Having laid out the law in general, I will now turn to the issues and the facts of the case before me. Issues [30] There were lengthy arguments and exchange of affidavits by both the Plaintiff and D2 before this Court. In essence the Plaintiff submits that: 30.1 the termination of the Performance Bond was made in bad faith. 30.2 it was D2’s breach of the Contract which led to the negative cash flow. 30.3 there has been an over securitisation. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 30.4 the conduct post termination of D2 will show that there is fraud or unconscionable conduct on the part of D2. [31] D2’s position is briefly as follows: 31.1 the Performance Bond is an unconditional guarantee and is a distinct contract with D1. 31.2 a distinct forum is to determine the differences or dispute under the Sub-contract. 31.3 the Plaintiff cannot seek to re write the bargain of the distinct contract between D1 and D2 to be conflated with the limited exceptions of fraud / unconscionability to justify the injunction. 31.4 there should not be a mini trial on merits to determine the issue of unconscionability which burden rests on the Plaintiff. [32] In so far as D1 is concerned they have inter alia submitted that: - 32.1 irrespective of the merits of the Plaintiff’s claim against D2, no injunctive relief ought to be granted against D1 as the Performance Bond is an unconditional bond and; 32.2 D2 never had any notice of any fraud prior to the receipt of D2’s demand. Analysis of Factual Matrix [33] This Court will firstly deal with the salient parts of the factual matrix of the matter which I believe may play a part in deciding Enclosure 1 of the OS and which I might add has differences depending on the perspective of each party. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [34] From the records before me, I have observed that: a) there were 4 Extensions of Time (EOT) granted by D2 to the Plaintiff with the last EOT granted up to 1.6.2023. b) that the Sub-Contract was terminated by D2 on 10.5.2023. c) D2 was allegedly given an EOT by the Government to June 2025 of which D2 disputes but have not disclosed when they were given the EOT or the date of the EOT. [35] As regards the terms of the Performance Bond, I have after reading the same found that: i. it was originally, as seen from the 3rd amendment letter dated 14.4.2021 from D1 to D2, valid till 29.4.2027, but due to the termination of the said Sub-Contract between the parties, the Performance Bond will now expire 6 months from the termination date of the Sub-Contract i.e on 9.11.2023; ii. is by the express terms therein continuing, absolute, unconditional and irrevocable; iii. is payable upon first written demand up to and not exceeding the sum of RM39,900,000 and stating that in D2’s “sole and absolute judgment the sub-contractor has failed to observe or perform any of the terms, conditions or provisions of the Sub- Contract on its part to be observed or performed or the sub- S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 contractor’s employment has been terminated under section 39 of the Sub-Contract”; iv. is payable ‘irrespective of the occurrence of any circumstances which might otherwise constitute a legal or equitable defence’; v. shall not be affected or discharged by any dispute or disagreement whatsoever under or in relation to the Sub- Contract; vi. was called or demanded upon by D2 to D1 via a letter dated 7.6.2023. [36] I have also looked at the Notice of Termination dated 10.5.2023, at exhibit P-22, and find that it made inter alia reference to: 36.1 an insolvency event under the conditions of Sub-Contract limb I, f and g of the Condition 39.2 (A), repudiation by the Sub- contractor as per limb iii of the Condition 39.2 (A) and breach of representations, warranties or undertaking by reference to condition 48.14 as set out in limb viii of the Condition 39.2 (A); 36.2 D2 assisting the Plaintiff with its cash flow from July 2020 to August 2022, July 2022 to February 2023, and in August 2022; 36.3 Criminal charges under the Penal Code against the Executive chairman and CEO of the Plaintiff’s parent company, Pestech International Berhad as well as on one Paismanathan Govindasamy for alleged dishonest appropriation of property; S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 36.4 the Plaintiff’s default in payment to its sub-contractors; 36.5 failure to make payment to KTMB for renewal of permits resulting in Works at the migrated lines coming to a standstill; 36.6 the negative impact on the progress of Works due to the above; 36.7 the refusal to allow access to inspect and audit materials in the Taman Emas Warehouse. [37] I have further examined the call or demand dated 7.6.2023 on the Performance Bond made by D2 to D1, at exhibit P-28 and observed that it states: “Pursuant to the terms of the Bond, we hereby make a demand for a total sum of Ringgit Malaysia Thirty-Nine Million Nine Hundred Thousand only…as the sub-contractors…employment has been terminated under section 39 of the sub-contract .in accordance with the terms of the Bond, you are required to immediately pay the said sum to us by bankers cheque…” [38] It is also in the records that the Plaintiff had objected to the said Notice of Termination vide various emails dated 10.5.2023, 15.5.2023, 16.5.2023, 19.5.2023 and 30.5.2023 as shown in exhibit P-26, and to the call or demand dated 7.6.2023 on the Performance Bond by way of a letter dated 9.6.2023 to D1 in exhibit P-29 outlining therein inter alia the same issues raised in the OS herein. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [39] In dealing with the contention that the purported termination was made in bad faith, this Court was urged to consider that D2 did not make out a case for insolvency on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of the Notice of Termination and that the Plaintiff’s financial standing did not affect the progress of the Works, which was at an advanced stage of almost 70% completed. [40] The Plaintiff also submits that there were in fact no actual advance payments by D2 as alleged by D2 and attempted to aver as well as provide evidence to that effect such as D2’s failure to compensate them for the materials and D2’s instructions to carry additional migrating works which are not within the Plaintiff’s original scope of works. It is also alleged by the Plaintiff that the criminal charges mentioned in the Notice of Termination is no longer an issue as the said officers have been discharged and acquitted. [41] It was further contended that D2’s breach of the Sub-Contract had led to the Plaintiff’s negative project cash flow situation for example their failure to compensate the Plaintiff for the materials delivered on Site, wrongfully rejecting the Plaintiff’s EOT applications as well as claims for loss and expense thereto, and under certification of the Plaintiff’s works. [42] It was also argued by the Plaintiff that D2 was attempting after the Notice of Termination, via discussions between the parties, to secure an alternative commercial arrangement with the Plaintiff that was in their favour rather than adhering to the contract and that there was an over securitisation of the Plaintiff’s assets by D2 totalling RM52,416,121,31 presently held by the Plaintiff, not including the use S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 of the machineries which D2 is still retaining for use which are worth approximately around RM15 to RM 20 million. [43] Thus, the Plaintiff submits that it would be unjust and an over securitisation to allow D2 to call on the Performance Bond when there is no loss or damage suffered by D2 especially so when the Performance Bond was still valid for another 6 months i.e till 9.11.2023. [44] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff than urges this Court grant the injunction sought and to consider: a. the conduct post termination of D2 vis a vis the discussions between the parties, to secure an alternative commercial arrangement; b. that D2 was aware that the Plaintiff had a new shareholder, IJM Corporation Berhad who is D2’s competitor, and that D2 wanted to stifle the competition; c. the Notice of Termination had stated that they will notify the Plaintiff of a joint valuation date to assess the value of works done however none was forthcoming; d. that D2 had prematurely thereafter called on the Performance Bond; e. D2 was still retaining the Plaintiff’s retention monies and machineries; f. the sole motivation for terminating the sub-contract was that the Plaintiff had got hold of proof of D2 lying to the Plaintiff regarding the MOT approval re the Taman Emas Warehouse i.e the suppression of the MOT approval; S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 g. D2’s failure to fully compensate the Plaintiff for the materials. [45] In reply to the said contention that the purported termination was made in bad faith, D2 stated that based on the objective facts before this Court, it can be shown that D2 and/or the PIB Group were having internal cash follow problems. [46] D2 then submits that the allegation of materials housed in the Taman Emas Warehouse, the past advances allegedly taken, the EOT’s, loss and expense claims, the under certification, the additional migrating works, the progress of Works, the issue of the Plaintiff’s insolvency, the Notice of Termination, post termination discussions and the call on the Performance Bond are all disputes which either concern issues of fact and /or the interpretation of the Sub-Contract. [47] D2 has also attempted to clarify as well as give their version of the facts from their position and perspective via their various affidavits before this Court and in both their written and oral submissions before me. [48] Be that as it may, learned counsel for D2 argues that all of the above are issues which belong in the Arbitration. [49] It is pivotal in coming to my decision that this Court does not, at this stage, make any definite determination as whether the disputes or issues raised by the Plaintiff are meritorious or otherwise, as per the case of Dauphin Offshore Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v The Private Office Of HRH Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Bin Zayed Al S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Nahyan [2000] 1 SLR 657 and KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v Lukoil Uzbekistan Operating company LLC [2020] 1 LNS 479. [50] It is axiomatic that the burden to discharge the ‘strong prima facie ‘case is a high threshold which has to be fulfilled to establish ‘unconscionability’ and requires proof of ‘cogent evidence’. [51] I must also state that I have noted that the Plaintiff has highlighted that the Plaintiff has invoked the dispute resolution mechanism provided in the Sub-Contract but the parties have failed to resolve the dispute and that the Plaintiff was reserving its rights to refer the dispute to arbitration at the appropriate juncture and that the relief in the OS herein was primarily for the purpose of maintaining the status quo between the parties pending the matter being resolved or finally determined by arbitration. [52] After carefully considering and reviewing the respective evidence and submissions on all of these issues raised above, this Court holds that it cannot summarily, based on my reasons in my grounds herein, make any form of conclusion or decisions as to the averments and contentions made by the parties, in particular that of the Plaintiff herein of (i) D2 not making out a case for insolvency on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of the Notice of Termination (ii) the purported termination being made in bad faith including the fact that that D2 did not make out a case for insolvency on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of the Notice of Termination or (iii) whether D2’s breach of the Sub-Contract which led to the Plaintiff’s negative project cash flow situation, that (iv) D2 was attempting after the Notice of Termination, S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 via discussions between the parties, to secure a favourable alternative commercial arrangement with the Plaintiff. [53] As to the issue of whether there was an over securitisation of the Plaintiff’s assets by D2, I have looked at the facts before me in toto and I do not find that there is an over securitisation as contended by the Plaintiff. The basis of such an allegation appears to be that D2 has not made any assessment of their purported losses or damage at the time of the Notice of Termination or the demand on the Performance Bond and that there is no basis for the RM333 million claimed by D2 against the Plaintiff for the total costs which D2 has to incur to complete the Plaintiff’s Works. [54] The Plaintiff further states that D2 has retention sums of RM20 million and that from the balance due to the Plaintiff for material and equipment delivery as well as prolongation costs and under certification in IPC 51, there is a sum totalling RM52,416,121,31 presently held by the Plaintiff, not including the use of the machineries which D2 is still retaining for use which are worth approximately around RM15 to RM20 million. [55] I have looked at the cases cited by the Plaintiff in support of their assertion of over securitisation which consists of the Singapore case of JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 46 [2011] 2 SLR 47 and the Malaysian cases of SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ahmad Zaki Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 115; [2020] 9 MLJ 137 and Damai City Sdn Bhd v MCC Overseas (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2023] 1 MLJ 258 and find that JBE Properties Pte Ltd (supra) was decided on the fact that the bond therein was a true indemnity S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 performance bond and in SN Akmida Holdings Sdn Bhd (supra) the case was decided on its facts which included that the bond was subject to the issuance of a written certificate, whereas in Damai City Sdn Bhd (supra)the decision of the Court of Appeal was made on the basis that the High Court having made a finding of an unconditional on demand bond, had failed to appreciate that the call was lawful. [56] Based on the preliminary facts before me, I do not at this juncture, find any over securitisation when there is prima facie the Plaintiff’s claim against D2 for RM333 million allegedly for the total costs which D2 has to incur to complete the Works, as per D2’s averment in its affidavit at enclosure 41, as compared to the Performance Bond value of RM39,900,000 and the alleged sum totalling RM52,416,121,31 presently held by the Plaintiff, which does not include the use of the machineries which D2 is still retaining for use which are worth approximately around RM15 to RM20 million. All in the sum purportedly held by D2 would appear to be insufficient to cover the costs of the completion of the Plaintiff’s remaining works. [57] I have consequently given due and proper regard of the application under section 11(1) (a) and (b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 under the OS before me and am of the view, from an objective perspective, that these issues are genuine disputes on issues of fact and of the Sub- Contract which I hold are more suitable and appropriately to be ventilated and decided in a different and proper forum i.e the arbitration proceedings where the merits of the case of each party is to be finally determined. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [58] I also hold that the as the said issues are not sufficient to come within the definition of fraud or unconscionable conduct as they are in fact disputes between the parties. Any form of remedies or recoveries or damages including that of the monies under the Performance Bond can be addressed and finally determined in the arbitration proceedings. I rely on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v Lukoil Uzbekistan Operating company LLC [2020] 1 LNS 479, [2020] MLJU 85 in which Mary Lim CJA (as she then was) had on behalf of the Court of Appeal with regards recognising unconscionability as a separate and independent ground” to allow for a restraining order on the beneficiary held inter alia: “[56] We agree with the respondent’s submissions that the threshold is high as the underlying disputes between the parties are essentially contractual in nature and those disputes are to be determined in arbitration. Thus, the court must guard against abuses of process where contractual disputes are elevated and disguised as claims of fraud or unconscionability.” [59] In any event I am fully aware, from the Companies Commission Malaysia search report that D2 is financially strong to make good the amount of the Performance Bond if so warranted and this has played partly in my decision herein. [60] I have considered and read the case of KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd (supra) which learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits in support of their contention that status quo pending arbitration should be preserved and find that the same was decided on the basis of the facts before that Court i.e that there were two underlying contracts S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 between the parties with both contracts contain provisions for guarantees of different total amounts but that the respondent had issued simultaneous demands on all three guarantees and that the challenge on the said guarantees were premised on amongst others as follows: i. the Guarantee for Refund of Advance Payment under the Gissar Main Contract was not an unconditional demand bond; ii. the calls were not in compliance with the terms of the Gissar Main Contract; iii. in any event, the call was only available upon termination and that did not arise in the instant case; iv. contemporaneous evidence and conduct of the parties, especially the respondent shows that there was no objective entitlement on the part of the respondent to make a call on the guarantees and that the respondent in fact knew that it was not entitled to make the call; v. in relation to the Khauzak Main Contract, the respondent had already agreed that following multiple extensions of the Warranty Guarantee with the last extension until 31.10.2017 pending the appellant attending to some miscellaneous matters under the warranty period, there would be no further extensions and the Warranty Guarantee would be returned to the appellant; vi. the fact of simultaneous calls on the guarantees issued under 2 unrelated and independent contracts. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [61] It is therefore clear in my view that KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd (supra) was decided based on its peculiar facts and that the same is not applicable in the case before me, as inter alia the Performance Bond herein before this Court is an unconditional demand bond and the call was properly made within the terms of the Performance Bond i.e the on the basis of the termination of the Sub-Contract under section 39 of the said Sub-Contract. [62] In any event, I am of the considered opinion it is not automatic that where there is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 the Court is obliged to maintain the status quo of the matter pending arbitration. The Court does, as was stated by the Court of Appeal in KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd (supra), maintain a measure of discretion of whether to grant the interim measure sought. The Court in doing so must consider whether such interim measure will aid, support or facilitate the arbitral proceedings, and that such measure will not impede the arbitral proceedings. [63] I am therefore, with the greatest of respect, not satisfied that the Plaintiff has shown a suitable argument for a strong prima facie case being established before this Court or that there is strong evidence before this Court that either fraud or unconscionability has been shown such as to convince this Court to grant an injunction to restrain payment on the Performance Bond as sought for in the OS. [64] Thus, I do find on a balance of probabilities that the Performance Bond, by its express terms, is an irrevocable and unconditional bond and that the the call or demand on the Performance Bond made by S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 D2 to D1 was, at least at this stage, shown to be prima facie properly made on the basis of the termination of the Sub-Contract under section 39 of the said Sub-Contract, albeit the termination of the Sub- Contract is disputed by the Plaintiff and the said demand on the Performance Bond is also contested by the Plaintiff. This would thus negate the contention that there was either fraud or unconscionability in the call made on the said Performance Bond. [65] This Court consequently notes that D2 had issued the LOD 1 day before termination, para 6.11. On this I find that this is also a ‘dispute’ and does not amount to strong cogent evidence which amounts to ‘unconscionability’. At its highest this would only show that D2 had hastily terminated the Sub-Contract without giving the Plaintiff the chance to respond to the LOD 1 and that this, together with the termination of the Sub-Contract, are consequently issues to be dealt with and decided in the arbitration proceedings. [66] I am reminded of the fact and do apply the principle that the Court is not to inquire into any breach of the underlying contract where the bond is a demand bond as per Karya Lagenda Sdn Bhd v Kejuteraan Bintai Kindenko Sdn Bhd & Anor [2008] 6 MLJ 636 where the Federal Court held: “The courts in an on demand type bond will not inquire into any breach in the underlying contract. This principle can be found in the case of Esso Petroleum Malaysia Inc v Kago Petroleum Sdn Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 149 where it was held that: Dealing further with the construction of the performance bond, since we found it was an on demand performance bond, this would, S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 in our view, make the present performance bonds independent of any underlying concept … On the type of such pure on demand performance bonds, the issuer should unquestionably pay on demand except in the case of fraud. Any argument or immediate disadvantage to the party who caused such a document to be in use is of no avail to the party who must face the risks of such unquestioned payment except where there is fraud; there was even no allegation of it, let alone any evidence of it.” [67] At the risk of repetition, the dispute on the termination of the Sub- Contract and the demand on the Performance Bond are matters to be determined at the arbitration proceedings. [68] I consequently reject the argument that the issuance of the Performance Bond comes from the requirement under the Contract as although this may be true to a certain extent, the law is clear that the Performance Bond is in itself fact an independent contract. The term “Performance Bond’ is in reality a commercial practice term only, which is not tied to the performance of the underlying contract, see AXA Insurance Pte Ltd v Chiu Teng Construction Co Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 62 [2021] 2 SLR 549, and that what is important is the terms of the Performance Bond which on the face of the Performance Bond herein, is a demand bond i.e payable on demand. Case against D1 [69] In so far as the action against D1, this Court holds in accordance with the case of Kejuruteraan Bintai Kidenko Sdn Bhd v Nam Fatt Construction Sdn Bhd & anor [2011] 7 CLJ 442 that no injunctive S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 relief can be obtained against D1, as the banker / issuer, where the demand on the Performance Bond has been held by this Court to be valid. The Court of Appeal had in Kejuruteraan Bintai Kidenko Sdn Bhd (supra) held as follows: “[71] The law on this issue is well-settled, locally as well as overseas: ie, if the performance bond is on demand and unconditional in nature, it is independent of any underlying contract between the parties; it is not open to the court to inquire into any breach of such underlying contract; and the bank/issuer is obliged to pay the beneficiary without any proof or condition, and notwithstanding any contestation or protest from any party. What is required is a valid demand in writing as stipulated in the guarantee agreement. Under such circumstances no injunctive relief can be granted to restrain the bank/issuer from making such payment to the beneficiary as demanded. The only exception to this rule is on the ground of fraud of which the bank/issuer has notice. The fraud must be on the performance bond itself and not the other documents. (see: Esso Petroleum Malaysia Inc. (supra); LEC Contractors (supra); and Patel Holdings Sdn Bhd Estet Pekebun Kecil Sdn Bhd & Anor [1989] 1 CLJ 229; [1989] 2 CLJ (Rep) 215). The question of "unconscionability" does not arise and should not be an exception to the rule.” Decision [70] In the circumstances, I do hold that the balance of convenience lies with D2 in upholding the Performance Bond and that there is no necessity to maintain the status quo as the requirements of fraud or unconscionability has not been proven to this Court. S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [71] The issue of any adverse effect to the commercial and reputation of the Plaintiff is in my view wholly untenable as it is at most marginal. [72] This Court will accordingly not intervene to restrain the call on the Performance Bond herein and the action for an injunction against both D1 and D2 in both Enclosures 1 and 2 are therefore hereby dismissed with costs. Dated: 20th day of November 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Rodney Gomez, Aarthi Jeyarah, Candice Shih Yuh Ru and Koay Kai Lih [Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co.] COUNSEL FOR THE 1st DEFENDANT: Chia Oh Shen and Chan Yat Mun [Messrs Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill] COUNSEL FOR THE 2nd DEFENDANT: Felix Dorairaj, Logan Sabapathy, Chong Samuel-Man and Ariel Priyanka Francis [Messrs Dorairaj, Low & Teh] S/N neKDrobwpkig/bwIZYYGeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-14-16-12/2018

PERAYU BENJAMIN JOHN THOMPSON RESPONDEN Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri PENCELAH BAR MALAYSIA

Revenue Law — Income tax — Case Stated — Whether Special Commissioner of Income Tax (“SCIT”) erred in deciding that disbursements billed by the appellant to his client tantamount to undeclared income — Whether the expenses of staff salary, EPF and SOSCO contributions were deductible under s 33(1) of Income Tax Act 1967 (‘ITA’) — Whether SCIT erred in finding that director general of inland revenue was correct in imposing penalties under s 113(2) of ITALegal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) - Legal firms – Operation of Clients’ and Office Accounts – Whether a solicitor operates a Clients' Account as a trustee or stakeholder

16/01/2024

YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=163e9ae0-373f-4008-9d45-cf2497383ae3&Inline=true

16/01/2024 16:59:04 WA-14-16-12/2018 Kand. 77 S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4JoFj83CECdRc8klzg64w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—u—1s—12/2013 Kand. 77 15/01/2024 15:59-04 DALAM IIIAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA m KUALA LUMPUR (EAHAGIAN RAVUAN DAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) RAVUAN SIVIL No. WA-I4 Is-1212013 AMYARA BENJAMIN JOHN moumsou ...PERAVI.l DAN KEYUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI ...REsPoNDEN DAN BAR MALAYSIA ...PENcELAH [Kes Dinyalakan oleh Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan Eagi Pendapal Mahkamah Tmggu Menuml Perunggan 3: Jadual 5 Akta CukaIPem1apaIan 1967 Daram Perxa.-a Pesurumaya Khas Cukax Pendapalan dv Pulrqaya Rayuan No PKCF(R) 359/2015 ANTARA BENJAMIN JOHN THOMPSON PERAVU DAN KETUA PENGARAH HASJL DALAM NEGERI . RESPONDEN] 1 sw uufiaxzoafizakwwkw E -m smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [1] [21 [3] [41 [5] [5] [71 [5] JUDGMEN1 ms is an appeal by way ova case siaied arising fivrn a decldlrlg order at me special commissioners of Income Tax ["SC|T”| daled an i zoia. The eppeiianl is an advuca|e and soiiciior praeusing ai ma rnaienai inns in me name and style of Messrs Thnmpsmi Assooiaies. Tne appellanrs appeal was dismissed by ine scrr. Tne sclr irien siaied a case var ine opi on oi iriis court. The hneflaols erlne case are as loiiows Pursuant |ci an audllcheck on me Ippsilanl on 25 6 2014, the Inland Revenue Ecavd (‘the Revenue’) issued a News oVAdrfllIlonal Msassmanl (“NAA“) to "IE appeiiani for me vear oi Assessrneni ("van zoos. in ine course oi iiie an heck, ine Revenue [mind mai ine appeliani nad criarged dlsbursemenls arnaunhng to RM4B6,534iW In VA 20179 on Ii: cnenis as payrneni hack disbursement costs paid by me sppellani Io mild parlies. However. iuriner review ol iiie disourserneni case by lne Revenue revealed inal only RM4a9,s5:s 55 was incurred. Triere is a difleienoe ol RMA7,1DI25 ("disouisernenls pilled'l, wnim are labelled as iricidenials charged lo (he invoioes ii had been discovered iriai Ihis arnduni was cnarged to me appellaril cllen|s in VA 2009 in response to me issues raised by ine Revenue, ine appeilani provided an expianaiion regarding ins appellanrs oaioulalion lor disbursements billed‘ wnal in the legal praclice is relerred lo as 'incrden'als". based on me opiigaiinn pi llie appeiiani under me Legni Procession Aei 1915 ("LPA") and diner reievani Ruies including ine selioiiors' Rernuneraiion order zuus in snarl, irie appellani Inllsled Iha| ine lncldenlals enarged within me relevani VA should not be considered inoorne Dasoile lne lorrnal expiana|inn, me nppellanl received a lelier lrdm the Revenue an 31 122015 on lne finaliealion mine audit exercise for VA 2009 iogelner wizn ine NM lor VA 2009 arnounung lo RM23,027 47 1 SN uariaaceoinaianneuu “Nair s.n.i n-rlhnrwm as in... is mm r... nflmnnllly MVMI dnunvlnnl n. .nune v-mxl at the Hrgh calm in Errlut Chlalw Yong Yln v Kanlnriyeh I-Ianrdun L or: [2010] MLJU 1155. wrnch held that an luvtxce was Its! a V02, 2. udle lronr Ina plulnurr. pmlous Iollclmrs m the plalnlm. me want. rsquasund tna nlaluurl to pay his sdlrduors lees lorservloas rendered. [38] In the clmumstanoes, the learned SRC reiterated that In the absenoe ol any pltml, the amount tnlled lo the chem would he lbs amount that lalls under s 24(1) at the WA and thus taxable under s 4 dl the same [39] The learned SRO lurlher submilled that lhe SCIT made a ltndrng that the inverse: rsaued by the appellant tall to be recervahle and accrual under s 24(1)(h) Aeeardlng lo the teamed SRC, thle nndlug ol tact is urlassailable and can netther be overruled nor supplanted by lrus ceurl, chua Lip Kong v Dlructor Gonsrul or Inland Revonut mu] 1 ML! 235 PC the Aualyele [401 I WIH address the lssues In the ease stated In turn. whetrrer the dasoursemenl: mlrad tantamount In undeclared lrlccme [M] As alluded to earhen the SC1T round that Panel mehha| lnctdenia/5 beriumlah HM47.1m25 mega. suatu pendapalarl buaiaskan Irwmi yam: aleh Pelayu lemudap pelanggennys While I am nctmdlned to disturb this finding ollaets, I am persuaded by the argument by learned counsel lor the Bar Councll that there ts a dilverenoe between "dlsbulsemsrlIs' and 'tncome'. 11 SN uanaaczounaamsuu _«wu. s.r.t nnvlhnrwm be u... w my r... drwlrrhflly mm: dun-vlnrrl VII .nuua Wm! [421 we Lake me owen case es an example in me: use me Laxpayer, Dr owen, camsd on pmcliue as a general medical practitioner In Fishguard, a |awn in waies He also held Iwo part me anpninlmsms win: the South weies Hospflal Manageineni comminee as an obstetrician and anaeslhetisl at a hospital in iiavervoniwesi, 15 nrries irorn Fishguam Under muse appntmmflmsi Ihe Iaxuayav was an stand-by duty a! certain specmea nines lo ueai wllh emergency sass an the hospital and at sum nines was required |c be aeeessibie by ieieenone. HIS l'BSDcnsID\|i|y lav a pa|ion| began as soon as he received a ieiepnene call, but nm every euen call resuned in nis going to me noepiiai under me terms «:4 his appointment, me Iwspflal managemem commiitee paid me laxpayafs Iravalling expenses at afixed rere permile lor mumeys between risnguera and me hospdal up In a single iaumey 0110 miles The taxpayer bore the DOS! D! Ihe Iddihonil fiv! miles. The (axpayar wughl to dsdud Ihe whale oael oflravslhng Incurred [431 Yhe House :71 Lerner bye ma1crIly1Lo1d Donavan and Lord Faarscn aissenung). held man thelaxpayer haa shown man ne periunnea me auues a1 his emee in two pieces, nenieiy, me hospital and me place wnere ne raoeivsd lhelalephcnecalland ineune expenses incunud in naueiiieg irorn one to the inner were rncurreu in me periurrnance or ms dmies Lord Pearce, in dehvermg the Judgmenl onne rnaioniy. remarked as renews me reimbursement: er eauei expelwss are cieany nun inieneeu by ':.IllnIi'. Was‘. Vagn‘ or'pmfi\s - it IS emnenaea Ihm mey are 'parqui!\lar.I“ [441 Lord Pearce was or me view that It would be e wholly nneieeaing uescripiion at an aims in say mei it had very large eerquieiues merely because we vioider had to disburse very large sums out or his own pad<e| and subsequenuy received a reinibursenieni or panial raimbursemem 07 these sums. [45] In any event, r 14.10 (3) at the Rules and Rulings of me Bar Council provides men. Awlulavacllrifi as siaireneuier lm |wnav inure eemee mm! iIM|\y were as me ienne er in. sukemlflmg a\ an limes No money or aeeurneni neia by . seiieirer as ehkshulder )1 sm uefialczoafieakixaldw “Nair s.n.i nmihnrwm i. u... m may i... nflninnflly mime dnuuvinnl vu .niwe v-mxi shall be ml-Ind. urrtr-so. npplasa er mhetwtu dean wnn Ivy such solrcrtor except ln Iwordanoe wtllt (ha (amt: cl tn. nlnkmuhlrtu or wrtn me express wmlleu muse"! at all mtevmivlnlu [46] wrtn respect, I nnnt accept the line ol argument at the learned SRO met there rs no rtinerence between a ctlenrz: Amount and an Offioe Amount operated by n law firm, on tne autnonty ol Datuk M Kayveas. a solrcrtor operates a C nts' Account as e trustee or stakenolcler. In tnat sense, tne rrronrers In the ctrents' Acwuntda nol belong to the solroitor. There is no elernent at trust involved when a solicttor operates an ovfioe Aooount. [47] At tne treanna oelore tne SCIT, lne appellant explalrled tne altterenoe between a clrents' Aeoourrt and an Ofice Awourll ‘nus can be seen in para lc.a ol the Case Slalett Baal ml tn. Perayu melvghupahkan bahawa nae. rm '7nI:tdsnllf rt. Ivan ‘nlluxflnnnaux up-nu: yam: ctmra name an lahurl (aknrin eren eetmn nrnre guamarl yang nrerta turnlen ynrvg dlkutlp tusnbtn bertuluan ttmuk plmsiarllaapt Yang Derkalun dengem lall nolanwarr setanu Iakurllvu-kuunwtyl t2 Llllun dart seblmw keltmungzn alau kerugtan hlsrtyn omen tltllrtluk-rt npublll rnr Ikhlmyl dlmustahkan Pevlyu rnerregesxan, nanya mutt. lall ltu dmllw, lam: pegunm melt mn msnylmparl rem dart kesetmbnrtaan dalam tetar Felanggarl dnarlttntan Seklranya nnne belch mamunnkln um: 56: t. nlhu rrrernnam Dali: wartg ml kupada pstarrmrr mu, teptrlt yinw betlnku a m mnprlll It x, oeten memlnttskart behawa lumliltnya tortalu mu mturr msmprmes omran ballk aan akart suhallkny: mawambtl lznuksh lnluk memlndshkan keselmblnqarl lru dart Lelat Pelamairt kn L. rveraoet. Harly: apabllabakl tersebtn arprm kart nan Letar l=-tarman kapudn Lear mam la oolen dlmvggnp xeb-gut Dlrvdapatan keoada Emu From me sxp|ana|ion grven by the appellant more the sell‘ rt ls dear tnat only when the nronres are transferred lrom the chants‘ Aooounl to me Olfloe Awounlcarl lt be oonsictered as inwrrre to me 13 srn uoflazlczoafieaklxauw “Nate s.n.r nuvlhnrwlll r. u... m my r... nflnlnnllly sun. dnuuvlnnl Vfl .nune vmul ofcoursa. in lina with lha;udgmen| nflhe Federll Court in Daluk M icayveas. [43] In the circumstances‘ Iha SCIT had committed an error EV law in In iaiiuis la disiiriguisii |he opeiaiidn 0! a ciienis- Amount arid an OM69 Account in a ‘aw firm [49] As to the word ‘incurred’ in s 33m oi ma WA‘ irespeciiuiiy agree wiin i.he1udgmen| oizainun Ali J in Malayan Wsaving Mriis max lhe word "Incurrud“ is no| restricted or confined to a snluahon M1879 disaursameiii is aiiaady made. An expendiiura can be Incurred wilham being disbursed, FirIaHy, on the authority of Clear Water sariciuary, any advanced payrneni received is rim suhjacl id lax under the pie-amendment s 24(I)(b) aflhe VTA vwieiher me appeiianr wss a/rowed to claim expenses /or sa/sry and EPF [so] On inis issue, the scii held mar the appeiiani has varied In esiaciisii me appeiianrs ||abHiIy In pay RMs.iio accrued on ma ground that me appaiiani nar rim paid iris dispuiad sums ys|. [51] Ar ine nearing belare iris son. are appeiiaiiiraiiad on me judgment or iris ccuri oi Appaai iii Exxon cimriicai (M) sari Bhd v Kaiua Psrigmii Hasii Daiairi Noqlli [1nos1 I nu 425 CA on me meaning 01 ms word 'incuired' in s 3311) oi me M his case carries ma piupcsiiidn mar ‘In expense iiii:urrad* is IIDI confined lo a disbursement and must ai iaasi include a sum in w on mere is an amigaiidn id pay, trial is Io say, an accrued liability lhal is undisdriarded. [52] The son sought In diS|IngulSh the said proposlliori on me gmurid mar Exxon ciiainicai was canearnsd wiin a benem plan and mu Inmme [53] wiin raspaa, when II imponani In undarslanding and applying a case iaw is to appreciate its rand decrdendi In Exxon Chemical‘ Ihe Coun oi Appeai was imerpreling me inipiicaiicii ol s 331 I ) oi iiie |TA, which ssrusd as a guidaiina and is binding on the iowsr mums. Gapai $ri Ram JCA iiaier FCJ) iiaid as idiiaws :4 SN uariaacsouaaaniauu “Nana s.n.i In-vihnrwm be u... M mm i... nflmnniily mini: dun-vinril VII .nuuc WM! no em irui In nwaiianrs ompiaye-o an um amuairy receive me money in a given year dues ml mane: Fat, had my nl mm. Mm wan aiiwble io rename the oansin claimed IL man -1 would hum bun lmponihls ior Ihe appelianl no have iawiuiiy rasislnd me am The ion Ihai me empinyees Iheughl i|fi| mm rnaxa a claim our in uaiar ii due: no: maka lha ublqaliori Io pay an exoenseinam Imzunud hryme aopaiiani nan-axlalenl Accordingly 4| mmn wlmn wnai rmrrua iawyers commonty :ail‘I1se baskef in r as [54] Based on the aforesaid proposition. Whlbhr I must umiemne man i am bound, since we expenditure can be curved wi|hnu| being disbursed, ihe amount of RM6,11o is dsduaroie unders 33lI)oi|he ITA Findings [55] For Ihe reasons aforesaid, my irndings on are case Stated are as iailows: (a) The disbursemenls oiiied by the appellanl to his clieri| amouriling in RM47,1m 25 do rio| (anlimoun| ro undeclared inmm VA 2009. in) The axpenses oi siaii saiary, EFF and sosco contribution: arnouniing Io Rwisiiiu on are allwwable expenses under s 33(1)v1IheITA [cl in view of my findings on issue! (a) ma (:2). (ha quesiron oi the rrrrposriron or me penany by me Revenue under 3 11312) oi ma ITA does not arise. No penany should have oaan imposed on ma spoeiiarii. [55] The deciding order urine son suflered irom rniirrnnres In that ii nod oornrnrned an appaaiaoie error vninin |ha meaning oi me Judgment oi me House at Lords in Edwards v Balrstow [W55] 1 All ER As ML, whim cans ior ouriai rnierveniron. 15 sm uofiaziczodnoakixauw “Nair s.n.i nmhnrwm .. u... w my r... oflmrroflly om. dnuuvinnl VII nFiuNG war [571 The appeal is allvwad [53] In view ov me of me Issues raised m mus appeal concern pu ' mxerasx. vn pamcular the legal profession as a whole, \ am not making any order an msts nnkn: 15 Junulvi 2024 L4 (WAN mumu FARID am WAN SALLEH) Hakxm Mahkamah Tmggx Kuala Lumpur. mm-p-m aagx Fmak Perzyu Benjnmm Jnhn Thompwn In Farlan s-g. mm Rlipflnden Asmma Ramznn Ah skc a. Smam cm um." ac Lembaga Haswl Dslam Negen mom, Cybenaya Bag: Pmak Penmlah Anand Ra]. MsVeun vu man Chaona Wen Y\e& Khang Song 5: Mzhyxlzm Bar Tmuzn Sheam Demmme a Co sm uafianczoanaakwxauw "’ mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! [9] The agreed rssues before the sen Ire ea Mlcrwe. (a) whether me disbursemenls billed by me appellant |n ms mien! arnounang lo RM41.1m.251an1arneurrne undeclared meme in VA 2ua9. (ta) wnemer the expenses 01 sue! salary. EFF and sosco nanlnbulmns amounting to RM6,110.0D are auawaue expenses under s 33(1) 0! me Inearne Tax AI:11BS7 ("lTA’]. (ca wnemer ma panally Imposed by me Revenue under 3113(2) of me In Is cared. Bdnrv lht saw [101 The SCIT. having heard me evmenoe and respective subrnrssrons at me panres, held as lollaws. (a) The appeflanl naa lauled |o esramrsn ma: me Incldenlals charged re rne clients are msrmrsernenne billed amounting Ia expenses Incurred Ihai were uarrrrame under s 33(1|oHha ITA. In me clrmmslances. me son new me: me annureemenca billed anreunung Io RM47.1U1 25 were undeclared rneorne taxable In YA 2009. on Ihls. rne son new that: Pans! mshhal modems/5 benumlah nmrmrzs sehlgll walu pandapalan bevaaaakin mvoli yang enarr Perayu bemadan pchanggamvys RW1 an dalam loebevinganrwa Man mennesahkan bnhlwu borduarlunllhun lakslnn yanu maumn lumlah yang urrryaukarr ublgll rnc/denial: rauan dnkennkan kaplfl: Dvlarvggzn Perayu Perayu husk -1-oar mermnjuklmn rrraaenrarerrn ueaaear mam yang dnanwung nae. Mum uvfluk menurrnursenagar pamelanjaan .1. amen xeceyarr um new war Fnkla mamluukkin "wall on menu mcrdantals amen keoada pelanggzm dan pznfl bluehqu aarrawa harnsa: plump pelculrilan penerrrnaan {Mcermb/9| 1 am akman perlakunn rm aaaran rnerueaxar. suam 2 srn uafianczoaneakwxauw “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. u... m my r... nflmnaflly mm: dnuumrrl vu murm WM pendaflalm sum daoqnn seksyln 2: ACP wav (D) The appenam was not avowed no claim expenses for EFF and socso oomrimmons amnuming tn RMe,11o unders 33(1) :71 the ITA var VA 2009. On (his, ma son new as Mums: Sehuhungan dengln mu Pemyu «swan gagal mmmawspuuk-n um um bnnuwn xam... yang emu yang nun: rayuan ml herasaskan mum amsaswo at lrrnnnoux sapemmana kepefluan m Iznwnh Fuvanwan <3 Jaauax 5 AC? 1931 dan sslzmsnye may“ adxlah max Vayak Imluk menumul pemahnplan a. man suhseksyen 3a(1)AcP19e7 Maka Response" mm. mm damn mnnunuyflhlvknn Pavnyu tmebm «mm clan mus Izkwzn mmuaman umldav Pnrayfl (c) The impcusiliun oflhe penalty under s 113(2) ohhe ITA by me Ravenua V5 annual m law. [11] The deciding order M «he SCIT states as (allows. RA‘/IIAN /M 1-sun mmapm mm kupulusan psda nan lru «Islam lmhadwun cw Hannah Anmn‘ pdgvlm hale dun pnwlm one bag] pnhak Pevayu din Enuk Wan xnammrn hm Wm uonm Fsgunrn my/, Lcmboga Nam D:/amNeqeamg:puhakRuspom1srv. ADALAH uwurusxm sgwm ssaumr swam Bahama Perayu Iulan gap: mm Immm/ukhan bahaw: zakmn y-nv dvlmmarkan men Resoanden tomadap bebau mun um -tau bombmnn "mu dlngan pererlgyirv 13 Jadua( 5 ma cm. Pendspalarv v9A7[Am 5:], DAN owurusmn sscam ssaumr snmu bahawa /urnlnh RM47,1I71 25 «wow mm: pendapatan dan n-mm mam: .1: n-wnn :44.) Am 5:. clan Mu ,.m.r.n llu supammya myzmarkan dalam tslmn my: mkenakarv den Poruyu man 9193/ rnelakukan pengtsylrmswn. . sm uafillczoafinamxauw g «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl _ mum pm om DIPLITUSKAN sscma ssauur SUARA Bahama Fevayu [U95 gagal lmluk mtnpvmukakarlbakllbaglfumlunllflnlzlnlnnml nequmlsh RM6,1H70¢7 mu perbolanpaarl larlebtllllmlul. mm DENGAN lru ADALAN DIPERINTANKAN mam myuarl Pstlw Mo/ak as" Nan: Takwan Tamhlsllan nmnkn Jo Dzsumctr mu baa: lahlm lmm may ylrly berkiltan dsngarl myuan lm dlkehalksn [12] As alluded |c enmer, aggrlevsd by me declding nrdar M me SCIT, lrle appellanl appealed la lms oolm Anho Hluh Court [131 Ey way cl an applicallon In Enel a. me Malayslan Bar Council sought Ic lnlerverle and be heard lrl lms lumelal rel/law. [14] According lo me as: Counal, slnoe ll IS the vsgulalcr of me legal pmfesslun, n has an mlelesl ln me prooeedlngs which may materially aflacl (ha nghll otsll all. members as well as members ul me public who are or wlll neeame chants cf firms ol advocates and sollcilors. [151 On 11.7.2019, Nnrdln Hassan J (now FCJ) allowed the applleallon in Encl a for me Bar Cauncll lo Intervene [16] Al the High com, me Bar Council's argumenls are as follows V‘/Plelher the disbursement lulled consmure-1 mmme ml The Issue m we case sealed. (0 my mind. revolves amurm whether dlsbursemenls bllled amount in expenses lrlcumad and therefore claimable under s 33(1) a! We ITA Th! SCIT answarad l| ln |he negalive. ll was al me vlew that me expenses incurred are not dalmable: 5 sm uuflazlczoaneaklxauw “Nair Smnl nuvlhnrwm s. l... M may he nflmnnllly mm: dnuuvlnnl VII nFluNG Wm! Make Pnnal sabulil mu borpalldalvqurl Peraw mlah gzgal nlenmljukkarl hahawa mcldantals yam lel-n dlcllknrl lersehul karts-in poiaflwan meruvelun salu larlmunuan yana lnlyak unluk dnurllm nhagnl pubnlullun dl bawah seksyen zalll now «am can Iarlya nlsrllvakarl salu vemnslen mean Pevayu me boleh dlkenakan Cllkfll [1 8] Belore me. learned counsel lerlne Bar cauncll submlfled me: mere ls a slurk diflarenee belwaen 'msburselnenls' and “lncome‘. Lealned counsel leund support In the elomelo moves on ln the judgment el lne House ol Lords ln Owen v Foak (Inspector of fans) [1910] Ac 244 ML. [19] aeeea on me elormld pmpuslllon. learned counsel lor lhe Ber Council suelnnled lnal uneer me ITA, me name er lne amnunt dlalged by a snllcllar In hls cllenl under me needing 'disbursemenls” and "lncldenlals" as relleelee ln me Invoices E a recovery oul-of-pocket and 17013! uperlses The expenses are undeneken on behall of me cllenl Learned oounsel men submllled lnel lne SCIT had erred when ll ooncluded me: me expenses are me ecllcmers prolesslnnal lees for me legal services, wnlcn -re laxable. The eppneellon afs 24 orme /TA [20] Leamed counsel «or me Ber counell sublnmee Illa! me genelal rule el recagnitlorl under s 4 el me ITA, read logelner with s 24 at me same would apnly lo prelesslenel less 5 24(1A], pmulees mal- Excem where subsecllml (ll eppllee, where ln lhe Ielavarfl pulled. any sum ls reserved by a relevant nelson m me mulse el mnylng an ; buslrlesa I'\ leepea at my unnm (0 be randsrsd or me use or erlloymerl| el any nmpmy to in dull Mm ln IM mun: vmlad or ln Irly lulluwlng Dasls pemdl me sum snell be ueelea n: we gmu llwume ul lne rslavanl person lmm me buwlau form: ralsvant nnrlud lne sum lslecellved oolwllhsundlng |h-Mno debt li own; (0 [hi raltvarl| penen .n leepee at uni servloes e: sum use ol enlmnnenl 5 sm uenaaezoenemeuw “Nana s.n.l mmhnrwlll e. HIGH e may he nflnlnnllly snn. dnuuvlnnl VII .nuno ml [211 [22] [23] Accordlrtg tn learned counsel, under s 24 M the ITA. a dept nwlrlg to a snlieitorthat arises in respect at any legal servloes renttered or to be rerrdeved at anytime in the course area ng his law rirm shall be treated as gross meeme of the law nrm far that year at assessment. The term 'de|71' in s 2A rerers to a debt in liquidated sum. whether er not due or due and payable This is explained in s 2: at the ITA. My atte ' n was then drawn to the iudgment at the High Calm in amen Park Development VKIIIII Plrtglrlh Hlsllblllm Nagcrl [2011] 9 MLJ 479. Alizatul ><hair.t llater FCJ) held that: Thus wadmg s 23(al together with 5 24 ii is uneqtnvnmlly oeei that tor the purpose ols 2: a dam means a dam lrl . Hqttldllad lum lwnetherernct dlteordue and plsyablc). Based on the atoresatd preposition, leemed counsel for the Bar Ccuncll submitted that any amount or sum ascenained in any relevant hasis period with respect to the legal services rendered will be treated as the gross income at a person tar that pericd It is the contention ol the I ed oalmsial tor the Bar Council that prior to VA 2016, the debt ewmg to a sclicitcrcan only be recognised as grcss income el the law am in a VA if such deb| arises trorn services rendered in that ‘(A However, with the amendment to s 24(t net 01 the ITA, a item arising ticm tuture legal services will be treated as the gross income of the law firm —as long as the amount ol luture legal services can be ascertained in the current YA. Learned counsel then relerred me to the case el clear water sanctuary Gold Management serhed v Koltu Fenglrllt rtlasll Dllun wagon [2014] MSTC 10-075. in that case. the taxpayer was an operator at a golt elup amt its membership was governed by a license agreement. The memtters also made advance payments to the taxpayer under the license agreement. the l:elR'e position is that the moment the ltcense agreement was concluded, the collected license fee pewme an inoerne accrued under s 3 at the ITA The sort dismissed the appeal lrcm the taxpayer that the deterred Iloense lees collected and recetved by it pursuant to the license agreement were not taxable on the year II was received. 7 srrv ueriaacsoeneaxixew «wee s.n.i In-rlhnrwlll be it... e mm i... nflnlhnllly MIMI dun-rlnrrt v.. aFlt.ING Wflxl [241 [25] [261 On appeal to the Huh Court. one M the issues ll’: be determined was wnelrierine advance payrnenl race .1 was taxable under s 24 at me ITA ln ine year ine amounl was received In allowing me appeal, zalelia vusai J llaler FCJ| neld irral ma advance payrrrenl in me lclnn ol lrre license lees oalleded by me laxpayer was rlol a deb! owing under me pm-amervdmanl s 24 al ma WA The learned Judge lunnar held lhallhe prearnanclrnerri s 24(1)(b)o1 the ITA only apples when lna services were rendered In delivering the rudgmerrl oflhe Courl, Zalena Vusol J remarked as lolllms: Ina crux or me apuellaril‘: appeal VI Ihal me Anvnme Paymunl is ml a dam owing In in anpeliani urruer semen 2a and sum, mere I5 rm legal ar iaclusl man var Ihe ruworldam |o sneiaa ma Aaunna. vayrnam in income (ax in me year II was realved Fullfler. na services had naan uridmvd ey me appallanl In sublecl me Mvanus Payrnenl to lnpoine lax rn lne veer liwas unnerved Learned oounsel «or me Ear Cpunprl than subnnllea mac mere is nalnlng In ma Flnance A::| zuls lnal sllpulalss s 24mm and introduced s 2411A) o1 me {TA lo be applied relruspeciively. For me Sald veason. learned pounsel sunrnmea lliere is no scaluipry basis lar ma Revenue lo oonslme lne amended saclmn 24(l)(bl or lne ITA relrospeclrvely la bring me advance paynreni oldlsbuisemenls no lax lrre appallanl in VA 2009 on C/lsnrs'Accoun1s and Mice Accounts ofLaw Finns [27] The Bar Council suhmllled lhal are laxing Irea|menI as adoplea by Ihe Revenue appears lo lraal lrra rnanies lhat are held by we law firms on hehalfuflhelr clienis in (he Clients‘ Amunlr. as being pan at me was accounl ova law firm and ineralma pan pl me |awfirm‘s income rnis, acoomlng lo leernea oounyel. a plainly wrong a srn uarraacaoanaarirauu "Nana Smnl nuvlhnrwm r. u... M mm r... nflnlnnllly mime dnuuvlnnl v.. muua Wrul [23] it is tne Ear counoirs pdsitldn tnet monies raoalved liom cllents that are held in me Clients’ Accounts belong to the clients and not the law nrm. They am not tielong to trie stollcimrs eitner. tn shorl, teamed counsel tor me Bar odurioil suamnted that trie C|Ierl|S' Account is a trust account. under the clients' Aooount, the otierit is tlie beneiicrary, and the law firm is a trustee or stalteriolder nie operation or trie Cllenls'AI:A:oun1 is such tlut none at tne inanias can as utilised witnout the express oansen| and autnorisatiun oltrte l:lIen|. [29] My attention was lrien drawn to the judgment oltne Federal court in Daluk M rcayirua 5 Ana! u sar council [2013] 4 AMR an: F5. rno Federal cdun tield trial wrien solicitors nald lunds as stakeholders, they held triern as tnislees and not in a contractual or ouasi-contractual capacity. Therelore‘ it was beyond argument tttat a stakeholder was a trustee and tnat trie oreaori dla staxeriolding lenn was not lust a breach or undertaking bul also a breach ollnist [so] since a solicitor does not have any beneficial lntarest over me c|ienls' monies, the Bar oounoil urged ltile court to conclude triat me monies in tire Cllanls‘ Acouunts are not to be construed as inodine ol a sollcitor. slaw salary and EPF [31] Tne appellant claimed stall salary, EFF Ind socso lar Ihe sum oi RMZM ,447 D6 in nislinanoial statement upon luntier review by the Revenue. it was lound that only RM234tB57 us was proved. Triis leaves tne drllerenoc of RM5.5Bu oonsidared by the Revenue is avebclalmed exoenaes Tne Revenue later acknowledged ttiat ttiere was a suppomng document proving trial an amount ol Rwao was paid to Ihe EFF. [32] In tlie circumstances. ttie expenses tnatcould not be woven were everiiually reduced to RM6,11D. [33] Ttie sctr, ln its grounds of ludgment. observed as lolldws. Pariyu penu m9NIb\lk|l|(Brl lurnlan RMSJIODO ierseoui ndalnll tavaknl yang maria Panel merlfllpml Pariyll hlah oadal merluemukakarl 9 sm uariaacaouaaaniouu «we. s.n.i In-rlhnrwlll be u... m may i... nflfllrrnlllli Mlhln dun-vlnrrl VII aFluNG Wflxl hukllhlhlwa uarbsiamaarl nagl jumlamelscbul ielan flllzkukan [:14] The Bar council look axeepiron in oils approach. [35] AGCDNIDQ ID learned counsel, ms word 'Incu!red" In S 33(1) 0’ Ihe ITA means lnai lnere is a legal onligarian or llablmy lo pay, wnrcn canml be avoided, II does not mean lhal payment has, In (act. been made, as me Um! lur payrnenl may he defense or may nai be cue yei Learned counsel relied on me ludgmenl cl Zalnun All J (laler FCJ) in Malayan Weaving Mill: St!!! and v Dfnctor Gencral of Inland Ruvuluo [1995] B MLJ 405, who held that me were 'lncurred‘ is HM rsmclsd armnfinefl In . Iltumlurl mare dlsbulsemml ls already made An expendnure lzrl be lllourled wllhaul belrlg dlseulsed Fm axarvlnle, er me cm! an en acccunilna year a mxviyar may we money «or rervrces lurldamd to ruin, such as slafl salary. xdvimxemenl charges and so an dlmrlfi me year we cemsranulordeducinrrasne namlny nu been mclmud Tm rnponn lram mo Rlvlnul [as] aelore me, me learned sernar Revenue counsel (-sac“) suhlrlllted malilre SCIT had conemly made thefinding oHac1slhatIhe arnounl In lne impugned lriveloe, rnelrmi ine lllcldemals should be declared as gross income. This‘ accd ng to me learned SRO, is in line mm s 24(1) 01 the ITA The learned SRC iurlner sulnnillsd lrial lne appellanlnac lailed Io pmve maurre lricidenlals had been wnolly Ind exclusively incurred during lnal parlod by me Ippeilanl in me pmducllon oi gross income iroin irial mums. For me alcresaid reason, me learned SRC urged his court In conclude inal me said expensas are net ceducimle under s 33(1) dl lne ITA. [371 me learned SRC also cenlended Ihal lne assessrnerrl is raised based on me appellanrs own lrlvolou rnerelore, according to me learned SRO‘ mere is no queshorl about distinguishing rncnies in me chenfs and cliice ledgers. in any euenl, me appellani nrrnsell adrrnued lrrai me invoices were issued lor services rendered and tar me clieni |o nay me same The learned SRO lelled on me jucgnrenl ID srn Lieflanczoafieaklxalaw “Nana s.n.i nuvlhnrwm rs. u... w my r... nflmrraflly mini: dnuuvlnlrl VII .nnuc Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12BNCvC-84-06/2023

PERAYU JKI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) CHANDRA VATHAN A/L KRISHMAN 2. ) VERONICA A/P GUNASEKARAN 3. ) TETUAN TING & TING

However, the Session Court did not pronounce its decision. This Court, to administer justice, had allowed this part of the cross-appeal by the Respondents and ordered for the said amount to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent.

16/01/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8ab5e767-535f-4fa2-9f75-1155ad07c85f&Inline=true

IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-12BNCvC-84-06/2023 BETWEEN JKI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (Company No. 1146943-M) … APPELLANT AND 1. CHANDRA VATHAN A/L KRISHMAN (NRIC No: 820128-06-5633) 2. VERONICA A/P GUNASEKARAN (NRIC No: 871012-14-5594) … RESPONDENTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1] This Court affirmed the paramount importance of true representation in the fabric of contractual dealings. It is a fundamental principle of justice that any individual who, through the artifice of misrepresentation, lures another into a contract, must unequivocally be held accountable for their 16/01/2024 16:45:12 WA-12BNCvC-84-06/2023 Kand. 31 S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal actions. This accountability is not merely a punitive measure, but a cornerstone of maintaining the integrity and trust essential to the sanctity of contractual agreements. In this case where the Respondents had purchased an abode, unit 39-07 Residensi Amani, Taman Puchong Hartamas on the representation that it was located on the right side of the building, this Court had affirmed the Session Court’s decision that the Appellant must make good its representation. The delivered unit was located on the opposite side of the building and the Session Court had ordered the Appellant to buy back the said unit at its purchase price of RM543,322.00. The Session Court additionally awarded general damages of RM5,000.00 to the Respondents, as well as costs of RM20,000.00. [2] On 11.12.2023 this Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the Session Court’s decision that allowed the Respondents’ claim. It was found that the Respondents had proven their case on a balance of probabilities. There were also no errors by the Session Court in its finding. Costs of RM5,000.00 was awarded to the Respondents. [3] Furthermore, this Court allowed the Respondents’ cross-appeal for the rebate of RM23,731.39 which was allowed as per the Session Court’s written judgment at paras 86 to 93 but not pronounced, to be included in the order and enforced against the Appellant. The correction to the decision of the Session Court was allowed but the Respondents’ cross appeal to add the expenses and costs incurred in addition to the payment of purchasing back Unit 39-07, and that general damages be assessed instead of the nominal sum awarded, were dismissed. Regarding the S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal award of rebate of RM23,731.39 which was to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent, interest of 5% was ordered to be paid on that sum from the date of this Court’s order on 11.12.2023 until the date of full and final settlement. [4] As at the hearing of the arguments for the appeal, this Court noted that the Appellant had yet to file the Session Court Order dated 31.5.2023. The Appellant had also failed to file the Amended Notice of Appeal as allowed by this Court on 30.10.2023. As the Appeal Records were not in order, the Respondents argued that the Appeal Records were defective in accordance with Order 55 Rule 4(1)(e) and (2) Rules of Court 2012 (RoC). The Respondents had complained too of the Appellant’s disregard for courts’ directions and procedures when it pointed out that at the Session Court, the Appellant had failed to file Issues to be Tried as directed. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, this Court had decided to proceed to hear the appeal by the Appellant. This Court however noted the Appellant’s conduct that bordered contempt and blatant disregard to Court’s directions and procedures. [5] At the Session Court, the Appellant had failed to file Issues to be Tried as directed. S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The evidence [6] On 28.11.2020 at the showroom office of the Appellant, the Respondents were shown a miniature model of the Appellant’s project – Residensi Amani, Taman Puchong Hartamas DW1, the Appellant’s sales executive had answered all the Respondents’ queries. Based on the representations and also the miniature model used by the Appellant in its sales, the Respondents expressed interest for a unit on the right of the North Condominium that had a view of Jalan Puteri 3, shaded from the sunlight and most importantly, not facing the graveyard, water tank and temple on the left. [7] On the same day, DW1 communicated via Whatsapp application that showed a unit plan of Unit 39-07 that fulfilled the requirements specified by the Respondents. They were also persuaded to purchase the said unit which was available for sale. [8] Premised on the explanations and representations by DW1 and also the project model, the unit plan and the advertisement that Unit 39-07 was located on the right of the building that was on the north and faced Bandar Puteri, the Respondents chose to purchase Unit 39-07. RM1,000.00 was deposited and a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 26.4.2021 (S&P) was executed between the Appellant and the Respondents. [9] On 10.3.20222 when receiving the vacant possession of the said Unit 39-07, DW2 accompanied the Respondents to the right-hand side of the building. They were shocked to discover that Unit 39-07 was not S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal located on the right-hand side of the building as represented and promised. They then found that Unit 39-07 was located on the left side of the building. As they had relied on the representations by the Appellant that Unit 39-07 was located on the right side of the building, the Respondents rejected and refused to take vacant possession of the said unit. The keys and access cards were returned to the Appellant on 14.3.2022. They terminated the S&P and filed the suit in the Session Court. [10] The Appeal Records showed that the Respondents were careful and prudent. They had even inquired from Messrs. Ting & Ting (the lawyers in charge of the S&P) on the discrepancies between the location of the unit in the Site Plan and the Layout Plan. The Respondents were not informed that the actual location of Unit 39-07 was on the left side. There were arguments that the person in charge for Messrs. Ting & Ting that day was a pupil in chambers. To this Court’s mind, it did not matter as the Appellant had represented and not corrected its representation that Unit 39-07 was located on the right-side of the building. There was also evidence that in its representation, the Appellant had wrongly shaded Unit 39-07 (shaded in square 07 when it should have been square 12). Thus, the location stated in the S&P was wrong. Evidence showed that the Appellant had known at all material times Units 39-07 were on the left side of the building and not on the right-hand side located in the north. [11] During arguments, the Respondents had presented the map of the Kuala Lumpur High Court to demonstrate that courts shaded in squares on the right of the map were located on the right, in their submissions that S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the Appellant had misrepresented the location of Unit 39-07 to them. There was no actual need for that. This Court considered the evidence that the Appellant (through DW3) had admitted its mistake and sought to see whether there were any more units on the right side of the building available to be sold to the Respondents. They were offered Units 38-10 or 37-09 to replace Unit 39-07. The Respondents refused the offer to resolve the misrepresentation on the part of the Appellant. This Court found on a balance of probabilities, there were some misrepresentations by the Appellant. The misrepresentations were relied on by the Respondents for the execution of the S&P. They were material that formed the basis of the Respondents’ decision to purchase Unit 39-07. Refer to Balakrishnan Devaraj & Anor v Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd [2010] 7 CLJ 152, Abdul Razak Dato Abu Samah v Shah Alam Properties Sdn Bhd [1999] 3 CLJ 231, s19 Contract Act 1950. [12] This Court referred to Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v Teh Kim Dar @ Tee Kim [2003] 3 MLJ 460; [2003] 3 CLJ 227 where it was the Court of Appeal held at p465: “Now the elements of an actionable misrepresentation are well settled. They are set out as follows in Professor McKendrick's Contract Law (3rd Ed), a leading work on the subject: A misrepresentation may be defined as an unambiguous, false statement of fact which is addressed to the party misled and which materially induces the contract. This definition may be broken down into three distinct elements. The first is that the representation must be an unambiguous false statement of fact, the second is that it must S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal be addressed to the party misled and the third is that it must be a material inducement to entry into the contract. Section 18 of our Contracts Act 1950, defines 'misrepresentation' as follows: 'Misrepresentation' includes — (a) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; (b) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gives an advantage to the person committing it, or anyone claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of anyone claiming under him; and (c) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement. This section is ipsissima verba s 18 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. It is to be noted at once that the definition in that section is inclusive or open-ended and not exclusive. Hence, the circumstances set out under each of its three paragraphs are not the only instances of misrepresentation to which the section is confined. In our judgment, it is the duty of a court to find the facts and then determine whether those facts fall within one or more of the three paragraphs under s 18. If they do, then the statement complained of is an actionable S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal misrepresentation. This is the approach adopted in one of the leading cases on the section.” [13] The doctrine of caveat emptor had no applicability in this instance as the central matter at hand was the representation of the Appellant that it knew was the material consideration of the Respondents. The Appellant had failed to show this Court that the Session Court was plainly wrong and thus appellant intervention was not warranted – see Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1; [2020] 12 MLJ 67, Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1, UEM Group Bhd (previously known as United Engineers (M) Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2018] supp MLJ 363; [2010] 9 CLJ 785. Cross-Appeal [14] This Court had applied the same ‘plainly wrong test’ when it assessed the Respondents’ cross-appeal. The Respondents on their part had failed to satisfy this Court the errors allegedly committed by the Session Court in not awarding costs and expenses and to order damages to be assessed. However as to the amount of rebate of RM22,731.29 the Session Court had allowed it as authored in paras 86 to 93 of its grounds of judgment. The matter was pleaded and this Court was satisfied that evidence was proven on a balance of probabilities in the favour of the Respondents. The amount was paid but yet to be refunded by the Appellant to the Respondents. S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [15] However, the Session Court did not pronounce its decision. This Court, to administer justice, had allowed this part of the cross-appeal by the Respondents and ordered for the said amount to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondents. DATED 11 JANUARY 2024 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for the Appellant : Tetuan Arnold Andrew & Co Counsel for the Respondents : Tetuan Pani Normala & Co S/N Ze1il9TokfdRFVrQfIXw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

B-09(H)-159-04/2022

PERAYU Tarumacanan A/l Teagarajan RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Section 395 of the Penal Code (Act 574) - Punishment for gang-robbery - The first argument, the learned trial judge failed to appreciate both the appellants defence fairly, properly and adequately - SP1 had borrowed money from the second appellant and promised to return the money but had failed to do so - Appellants were there to collect the money and supported by the testimony of DW3 who was present at the time of incident - The defence of money owed between SP1 and the second appellant is merely a bare denial and did not raise any reasonable doubt - Credibility and veracity of SP1 and the consistency of evidence as a witness of the truth - The second ground was that the concerns the alleged gang robbery charge preferred against both the appellants with was not proven by the prosecution - The non-discovery and non-production of the robbed item is not fatal under section 395 of Penal Code – No error in the appreciation of the defence case by the learned trial judge and the appeal judge - Neither any mistake of law or facts, any miscarriage of justice or any valid reason to interfere with the final decisions - The evidence against the appellants overwhelming and the conviction against the appellants is safe - The offence demanded appropriate punishment so as to reflect public abhorrence of such crimes.

16/01/2024

YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Dato' S.M. Komathy A/P SuppiahYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=68d79bba-5abe-4b27-a52e-8e62314c379a&Inline=true

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: B-09(H)-154-04/2022 & B-09(H)-159-04/2022 BETWEEN 1. TARUMACANAN A/L TEAGARAJAN 2. VIJAYAKUMARAN A/L MANOGAR - APPELLANTS AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - RESPONDENT [In the matter of High Court of Malaya at Selangor In Shah Alam Criminal Suit No: BA-42S-22-07/2020 & BA-42S-23-07/2020 Between 1. Tarumacanan A/L Teagarajan 2. Vijayakumaran A/L Manogar - Appellants And Public Prosecutor - Respondent] 16/01/2024 12:47:34 B-09(H)-159-04/2022 Kand. 33 S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 CORAM: VAZEER ALAM BIN MYDIN MEERA, JCA AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, JCA S.M. KOMATHY A/P SUPPIAH, JCA JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The charge preferred against the appellants read as follows: Bahawa kamu pada 13/10/2018 jam lebih kurang 7.05 pagi di hadapan No.1 Jalan Guruh Kuala Ampang, di dalam Daerah Hulu Langat, di dalam Negeri Selangor, telah melakukan rompakan berkumpulan terhadap Abu Taher Mia (No PIP: BR0287676) dengan merompak hartanya iaitu 1 unit telefon bimbit jenama Redmi Note 5 dan dompet duit, anggaran kerugian RM600.00 dan semasa melakukan rompakan tersebut, kamu telah menggunakan senjata sebilah parang. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 395/397 Kanun Keseksaan (Akta 574). [2] The appellants claimed trial to the charge. [3] In support of its case the prosecution called six (6) witnesses. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] When the appellants were called upon to enter their defence, they elected to give evidence on oath and called two witnesses to testify on their behalf. [5] At the end of the trial, the learned sessions court judge found both the appellants guilty on the charge and imposed a sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment (from date of conviction) and one stroke of the rotan. [6] Dissatisfied with the said decision, the appellants appealed to the High Court Shah Alam against both the conviction and sentence. [7] On 13/4/2022, the learned high court judge affirmed the findings of the trial judge and dismissed the appellants appeal against conviction and sentence. [8] This present appeal before us is by both the appellants against conviction and sentence. The Case for The Prosecution [9] The facts that had been adduced by the prosecution during the prosecution’s case had been aptly summarised by the learned trial judge in his grounds of judgment, which we now reproduce: [4] Fakta kes secara ringkas adalah pada 13/10/018 jam lebih kurang 0705hrs semasa pengadu, Abu Taher seorang warganegara Bangladesh berada di hadapan rumahnya beralamat di No 1 Jalan Guruh Hulu Kelang, Kuala Ampang, SP1 telah didatangi oleh dua (2) lelaki India menaiki motorsikal jenis Modenas Kriss nombor S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 pendaftaran WFG785. Menurut SP1 pada masa itu, beliau baru balik selepas menunaikan solat subuh dan menunggu di hadapan pagar untuk dibuka oleh makciknya apabila tiba-tiba dua (2) orang lelaki India (OKT1 dan OKT2) telah menghampiri SP1 . Dua orang lelaki India itu telah turun dari motor dan satu orang mencekik SP1 dan satu orang lagi cuba mengambil barang-barang milik SP1. SP1 tidak dapat melihat siapa yang mencekiknya tetapi semasa OKT- OKT hendak balik SP1 nampak muka kedua-dua OKT. SP1 juga cam kedua-dua OKT kerana mereka datang dua tiga kali. [5] SP1 telah membaling barang-barangnya iaitu telefon bimbit jenama Redmi Note 5 dan dompet duit ke dalam kawasan pagar rumah semasa SP1 dicekik oleh OKT1. Menurut SP1, OKT2 telah memanjat pagar dan masuk ke dalam kawasan rumah dan telah mengambil barang-barang SP1. SP1 telah menjerit memanggil Jishan dan Ibrahim (SP3) yang tinggal di rumah tersebut. SP1 juga menjerit memanggil pakciknya. Kedua-dua lelaki India ini kemudiannya telah melarikan diri menaiki motor apabila jeritan SP1 telah didengari oleh mereka yang berada di dalam rumah tersebut dan telah keluar untuk membantu SP1. [6] SP2 Ullah Mohamad Ibrahim Khalil, merupakan kawan kepada SP1 dan tinggal bersama SP1 dan keluarganya di rumah di mana kejadian rompakan berlaku. Menurut SP2 pada jam 7.05 pagi ketika beliau berada di ruang tamu sedang berzikir selepas solat subuh SP2 terdengar orang menjerit memanggil nama abang saudaranya iaitu Jishan dengan kuat dan lantang menyebabkan SP keluar ke ruang tamu untuk melihat siapa yang menjerit. Apabila keluar SP2 nampak SP1 diluar pagar rumah dicekik oleh OKT1 di bahagian S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 leher. Menurut SP2, beliau juga nampak satu orang lagi OKT2 memanjat masuk ke dalam kawasan rumah dengan memanjat tembok. SP2 dan Jishan telah menjerit dan pada masa yang sama OKT1 dan OKT2 telah melarikan diri menaiki motorsikal. [7] Selepas OKT-OKT melarikan diri, SP2 dan Jishan telah turun ke bawah untuk memasukkan SP1 ke dalam rumah kerana pintu pagar berkunci dan memeriksa barang apa yang hilang. OKT 2 masuk ke dalam kawasan pagar rumah telah mengambil telefon bimbit SP1. Dompet duit tidak diambil oleh OKT-OKT. Jarak antara SP2 dan tempat kejadian adalah lebih kurang 5 meter. [8] Menurut SP2 selang beberapa minit, OKT1 dan OKT2 datang kali kedua dan membawa parang membuka pintu pagar rumah dan menjerit kalau berani turun. SP2 telah menalipon polis. Dalam jam 7.30-7.35 polis sampai. Semasa mereka bercerita dengan polis, kedua-dua OKT telah lalu di hadapan rumah dan SP2 serta SP1 dan Jishan telah tunjuk OKT-OKT kepada polis. SP2 boleh cam kedua-dua OKT kerana mereka tidak memakai topi keledar. SP2 juga mengenali OKT-OKT kerana mereka bersekolah di sekolah yang sama. SP2 tidak nampak OKT-OKT membawa parang semasa kejadian rompakan ke atas SP1. [9] Pada jam lebih kurang 0721 hrs hari yang sama iaitu 13/10/18, anggota tangkapan, Korporal Nadmin Shamaizar Abdul Jalil (SP4) dan Koperal Walter yang menaiki MPV SL 318 dan pada ketika itu sedang bertugas ronda cegah jenayah sektor (7) Balai Polis Hulu Kelang Ampang telah menerima berita MERS 999 dari bilik Gerakan Ampang seorang lelaki warganegara Bangladesh telah S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 diragut oleh dua (2) orang lelaki India menggunakan parang. Berikutan itu SP4 dan Korperal Walter telah pergi ke tempat kejadian iaitu di rumah SP1. [10] Semasa berada di lokasi kejadian dan ketika SP4 menemubual SP1 untuk mendapatkan maklumat kejadian, dua orang lelaki India telah melintas di hadapan mereka, SP1 telah menjerit "dia samun saya, dia samun saya" lalu SP1 dan telah menunjukkan kepada anggota tangkapan dua orang lelaki India menaiki motorsikal jenis Modenass Kriss warna merah nombor pendaftaran WG 785 yang sedang melintas di hadapan SP4 dan Koperal Walter. SP4 dan Korperal Walter telah mengejar OKT-OKT dan telah berjaya menahan OKT-OKT. [11] Koperal Walter yang bersama-sama membuat tangkapan ke atas OKT-OKT bersesama SP4 telah melakukan pemeriksaan fizikal ke atas OKT-OKT disaksikan oleh S4, telah menjumpai dua (2) bilah parang iaitu sebilah di belakang badan OKT1 (P9) (ditutup dengan baju) dan sebilah lagi di dalam bakul motorsikal berhampiran dengan OKT2 (P10). SP4 kemudiannya telah merampas kedua-dua bilah parang tersebut serta beg galas jenama Nike (P6) dan sepasang sarung tangan bewarna biru hitam jenama The Fox Vehicle (P7). SP4 dan Konstable Walter seterusnya telah membuat tangkapan ke atas OKT-OKT. [12] Barang-barang rampasan dan OKT-OKT telah dibawa ke balai untuk tindakan lanjut dan diserahkan keapda pegawai penyiasat kes lnspektor Mohd Zuhadi Shafie (SP6) untuk siasatan dan tindakan lanjut. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 The Case for The Defence [10] The appellants defence had also been summarised by the learned trial judge, and we now reproduce: [30] Pembelaan telah memanggil seramai 2 orang saksi iaitu jiran OKT2 iaitu Puan Malathi a/p Palanisamy (SD3) serta Puan Maria Puspam a/p Rayappan (SD4) di samping keterangan OKT1, Tarumachanan a/l Teagarajan (SD2) dan OKT2 Vijayakumaran a/I Manogar (SD1), bagi menyokong keterangan pembelaan. [31] Menurut keterangan OKT1 dan OKT2 lebih kurang pada jam 7.00 pagi mereka telah pergi ke rumah SP1 untuk menuntut hutang iaitu sejumlah wang RM5000 yang telah dipinjam oleh SP1 dari OKT2 untuk tujuan memperbaharui VISA SP1. OKT2 dan SP1 tinggal di kawasan yang sama iaitu di Kuala Ampang. [32] Di dalam keterangannya, OKT2 menyatakan pada bulan Mac 2018, SP1 telah meminjam wang berjumlah RM5000 dari OKT2 dan SP1 berjanji untuk membayar balik wang yang dipinjam pada bulan April. Walau bagaimanapun SP1 gagal untuk membuat bayaran balik pinjaman tersebut. Apabila diminta oleh OKT2, SP1 memaklumkan belum mendapat duit lagi dan jika OKT2 menalipon SP1 tidak menjawab panggilan SP1. [33] Menurut OKT2 pada 12/10/ 2018 jam lebih kurang 8 malam OKT2 telah pergi ke rumah SP1 dan telah keluar seorang perempuan memaklumkan SP1 tiada di rumah keluar bekerja dan akan pulang pada esok pagi. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [34] Pada keesokan harinya, 13/10/2018 jam lebih kurang 7 pagi OKT1 dan OKT2 telah pergi ke rumah SP1 untuk menuntut wang yang dipinjam oleh SP1. Menurut OKT2 pada waktu itu SP1 baru balik dari kerja. OKT1 telah turun dari motor dan meminta SP1 membayar wang tersebut. Apabila diminta oleh OKT1, SP1 mengulangi jawapan akan membayar duit tersebut apabila perlu. OKT1 telah memarahi SP1. Ketika itu OKT2 duduk di atas motor. [35] SP1 juga maklumkan akan membuat laporan polis jika OKT1 dan OKT2 datang semula dan meminta duit dari SP1. Pertelingkahan antara mereka telah menyebabkan jiran semua keluar dan nampak. OKT2 telah memanggil OKT1 dan mereka beredar dari tempat tersebut. [36] Setelah itu mereka ke balik ke rumah OKT2 untuk mengambil barang-barang dan hendak pergi kerja. Untuk pergi kerja mereka perlu melalui rumah SP1. Dan ketika mereka melalui di hadapan rumah SP1, SP1 telah tunjuk ke arah mereka kepada polis. [37] OKT1 di dalam keterangannya menyatakan mengenali SP1 kerana SP1 pernah bekerja dengan OKT2 dan pernah mencadangkan SP1 untuk beberapa pekerjaan plumbing dan elektrik di kawasan Kuala Ampang. OKT2 mempunyai syarikat yang dikenali sebagai Seeverajaya Enterprise (D21(a) dan D21(b). OKT2 pernah mengesyorkan/rekomen SP1 untuk kerja-kerja piping di rumah SD3 iaitu di Lorong Kabus 1 dan Lorong Kabus 8 dan Lorong Embun 3. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [38] Menurut OKT2 beliau dapat kumpul duit dari Puan Malathi sebanyak RM5000, Encik Mahendaran RM2000 dan dari Puan Maria RM1500 bagi kerja-kerja piping yang dibuat dirumah mereka. Bagi kerja-kerja yang dibuat oleh SP1, OKT2 telah memberikan upah untuk jumlah RM400 untuk kerja- kerja di rumah Mahendran, RM1500 untuk kerja-kerja di rumah Maria dan RM5000 untuk kerja- kerja di rumah Malathi. [39] Di dalam keterangannya OKT2 memaklumkan menghubungi SP1 melalui nombor 0166719770 untuk kerja dan juga meminta wang yang dipinjam oleh SP1. [40] OKT1 di dalam keterangannnya menyatakan telah pergi ke rumah OKT2 dalam pukul 6.30 hingga 6.45 pagi berikutan dipanggil oleh OKT2 kerana ada kerja. OKT1 bekerja freelance dengan OKT2 bermula pertengahan Januari atau awal Februari 2018. Selepas sampai di rumah OKT2, OKT2 memaklumkan kepada OKT1 untuk pergi ke rumah SP1 untuk meminta hutang. [ 41] OKT1 dan OKT2 telah pergi ke rumah SP1 dalam pukul 7 lebih pagi. OKT1 telah meminta duit hutang itu dari SP1 tetapi SP1 enggan bayar dan SP1 maklumkan akan buat laporan polis. Ketika itu OKT2 duduk di atas motor. OKT1 telah menjerit marahkan SP1.Pada masa itu dua orang dari rumah SP1 dan seorang kakak yang sedang berbual dengan OKT2 ada di tempat kejadian. [42] Selepas itu OKT1 dan OKT2 balik ke rumah OKT2 untuk mengambil tool box, wire gulung, screw driver, test pen dan diletakkan di dalam bakul motorsikal untuk pergi kerja. OKT1 S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 menyatakan OKT2 ada memaklumkan kepadanya yang SP1 ada meminjam duit OKT2 sebelum tarikh kejadian. [43] Di dalam keterangan SD3, Puan Malathi a/p Perumal yang merupakan jiran kepada OKT2 menyatakan pada tarikh kejadian 13/10/2018 pada jam lebih kurang 7.10 pagi ketika beliau melalui jalan Kabus 1 menuju ke pasar beliau terdengar pergaduhan dan nampak SP1 dan OKT1 yang beliau panggil young man bertanyakan SP1 bila kamu nak bagi balik duit? Selepas itu SD3 telah melalui jalan kabus 1 dan telah tanya OKT2 apa masalah dan OKT2 telah menjawab tujuan adalah untuk minta balik duit yang telah dipinjam oleh SP1. Selepas itu SD3 berlalu ke pasar. [44] Saksi pembelaan SD4, Puan Maria Puspam a/1 Rayappan di dalam keterangannya menyatakan mengenali OKT2 yang dipanggilnya Jiji Boy dan OKT1 yang dipanggil Dharma kerana mereka adalah rakan sekelas anaknya dari kecil. OKT2 tinggal di kawasan rumah SD4 tetapi tidak mengetahui Dharma tinggal di mana. SD4 juga akan memanggil OKT2 untuk membuat wiring (pendawaian elektrik) dan piping di rumahnya. [45] Di dalam keterangannya, SD4 menyatakan kali terakhir beliau memanggil OKT2 untuk melakukan kerja-kerja di rumahnya adalah pada bulan Februari 2018. SD4 juga menyatakan semasa kerja- kerja dilakukan di rumahnya, OKT2 telah membawa seorang lelaki warganegara Bangladesh dan SD4 mengenali lelaki Bangladesh itu kerana lelaki Bangladesh itu dari kawasan yang sama dengan SD4. SD4 telah camkan SP1 melalui gambar di eksibit P2. Menurut SD4 beliau hadir ke Mahkamah bagi menjadi saksi bagi kesalahan yang S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 tidak dilakukan oleh OKT-OKT. SD4 tidak mengetahui yang OKT1 dan OKT2 telah ditangkap oleh polis. [46] Menurut SD4 beliau hanya mengetahui yang OKT1 dan OKT2 telah ditangkap polis melalui bapa OKT dua (2) hari selepas OKT1 dan OKT2 ditangkap polis ketika bertemu bapa OKT2 di pasar. Di dalam pertemuan itu SD4 telah bertanyakan kepada bapa OKT2 kenapa mereka ditangkap dan SD4 telah dimaklumkan oleh bapa OKT2 bahawa OKT1 dan OKT2 pergi meminta hutang dan selepas itu polis telah menangkap mereka. [47] Di dalam keterangannya SD4 memaklumkan telah memberitahu bapa OKT2 untuk pergi ke rumah SP1 tersebut dan bercakap dengan mereka. Berikutan itu, pada pukul 8 malam SD4 telah pergi ke rumah bapa SP2 dan bertanyakan kepada bapa SP1 yang dipanggil "Ayya" kenapa membuat laporan polis dan polis telah menangkap OKT2 sedangkan mereka datang untuk meminta hutang sahaja. Menurut SP4 bapa SP2 maklumkan kejadian telah berlaku dan memberitahu akan tarik balik kes ini dalam dua hingga tiga hari. Selepas itu SD4 pun balik ke rumah. The Relevant Provision of Law Section 395 of the Penal Code (Act 574) provides that: Punishment for gang-robbery. Whoever commits gang-robbery shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Findings of The Learned Trial Judge [11] The learned trial judge then analysed the evidence of both the appellants at length and concluded: [48] Di dalam kes ini pertuduhan ke atas OKT1 dan OKT2 adalah merompak. Keterangan SP1 menyatakan pada waktu dan tarikh kejadian SP1 baru balik dari menunaikan solat subuh di surau berhampiran apabila OKT 1 dan OKT2 datang merompak SP1. SP1 menafikan ada berhutang dengan OKT2. Malah semasa disoal oleh peguam, SP1 dengan tegas menafikan beliau ada meminjam duit dari OKT2 bagi tujuan memperbaharui VISAnya. [49] Mahkamah mendapati OKT1 dan OKT2 tidak menafikan telah berjumpa dengan SP1 namun menafikan telah merompak dan mencekik SP1. Asas pembelaan adalah kehadiran OKT1 dan OKT2 ke rumah SP1 adalah untuk menuntut hutang dan bukan tujuan merompak. [50] Pembelaan juga telah mengemukakan saksi-saksi SD3 dan SD4 bagi menyokong pembelaan OKT1 dan OKT2 bahawa pada pagi hari kejadian OKT1 dan OKT2 telah pergi ke rumah SP1 bagi tujuan rundingan untuk menuntut hutang iaitu wang berjumlah RM5000 yang dikatakan dipinjam oleh SP1 dari OKT2 bagi tujuan pembaharuan VISA SP1. [52] Keterangan oleh OKT2 menyatakan SP1 telah meminjam duit OKT2 sekitar Mac 2018. Namun Mahkamah mendapati keterangan ini bercanggah dengan keterangan SP1 yang beliau hanya berada di Kuala Ampang bermula 14/4/2018 sejak VISAnya bekerja di S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Kuantan tamat. SP1 juga di dalam keterangannya menyatakan SP1 bekerja di Kuantan sejak tahun 2016 dan hanya setelah VISA kerjanya tamat iaitu bermula pada 14/4/2018 SP1 telah berada di rumah bapa saudaranya di Kuala Ampang. Selepas VISA bekerjanya tamat sepanjang tempoh tersebut iaitu dari tempoh 14/4/2018 sehingga 13/10/2019, SP1 bekerja di restoran di Jalan Pudu. [53] Oleh yang demikian timbul keraguan bagaimanakah SP1 boleh membuat pinjaman wang sebanyak RM5000 dari OKT2 pada bulan Mac 2018 sedangkan keterangan SP1 adalah jelas yang SP1 hanya berada di Kuala Ampang di rumah bapa saudaranya bermula dari 14/4/2018. Fakta ini tidak pernah dipertikaikan oleh peguam. Malahan Mahkamah meragui fakta berkenaan pinjaman wang ini apabila peguam OKT sendiri semasa pemeriksaan balas terhadap SP1 bertanyakan soalan kepada SP1 samada ada meminjam wang pada bulan Oktober 2018 dan bukannya Mac 2018 sedangkan fakta itu adalah keterangan bagi pembelaan. Justeru pada Mahkamah pembelaan OKT1 dan OKT2 berkenaan pinjaman wang oleh SP1 hanyalah rekaan semata-mata. Di kemukakan nota keterangan pemeriksaan balas SP1 oleh peguam sebagaimana berikut: Q: Saya cadangkan dalam tempoh bulan Oktober 2018 kamu buat kerja kontrak di Ampang? A: Tidak setuju S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [54] Mahkamah juga mendapati keterangan oleh OKT2 semasa diperiksa balas oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya mengakui tidak pernah memaklumkan kepada pegawai penyiasat semasa rakaman percakapan berkenaan pinjaman wang oleh SP1 ini. Pada Mahkamah fakta ini adalah sangat relevan yang seharusnya dimaklumkan kepada pegawai penyiasat untuk membuktikan dan mengesahkan kehadiran OKT1 dan OKT2 di rumah SP1 adalah untuk menuntut hutang kerana fakta ini berada di dalam pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 sendiri dan asas pembelaan. Kegagalan oleh OKT2 untuk memaklumkan perkara ini semasa rakaman percakapan tidak dijelaskan dalam pemeriksaan semula. Kegagalan OKT2 mahupun OKT1 untuk memaklumkan perkara ini kepada pegawai penyiasat telah menimbulkan keraguan kepada Mahkamah. [55] Dikemukakan nota keterangan pemeriksaan balas OKT2 oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya sebagaimana berikut: Q: Diawal-awal kamu ditangkap ada kamu bagitahu lnspektor tentang pinjaman ini? A: Saya ada beritahu Inspektor Zuhadi Q: Sewaktu rakaman percakapan, ada bagitahu? A: Saya ada beritahu Q: Kamu ada beritahu tentang pinjaman wang ini sewaktu rakaman percakapan kamu diambil oleh lnspektor Zuhadi? S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 A: Saya tidak beritahu [56] Selanjutnya di dalam keterangan OKT2 semasa pemeriksaan utama oleh peguamnya, menyatakan mengenali SP1 sejak tahun 2017. Namun apabila diperiksa balas oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya OKT2 menyatakan kali pertama berjumpa SP1 adalah pada bulan Januari 2018. Percanggahan keterangan fakta ini tidak dijelaskan oleh OKT2 melalui peguambelanya. Pada Mahkamah keterangan ini adalah material bagi membuktikan yang SP1 benar-benar mengenali OKT2 dan sememangnya pernah melakukan kerja-kerja wiring dan piping kepada jiran-jiran di Kuala Ampang atas saranan dan syor OKT2 sendiri. Percanggahan fakta ini juga jelas menimbulkan keraguan kepada Mahkamah. [57] Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan Timbalan Pendakwaraya perkara berkenaan dengan meminta hutang adalah penafian OKT1 dan OKT2 semata-mata. Selanjutnya Mahkamah juga mendapati di dalam keterangan OKT1 menyatakan OKT1 yang bercakap dan bertanyakan kepada SP1 berkenaan hutang OKT2. Semasa disoal balas oleh Timbalan pendakwaraya kenapa OKT1 yang perlu meminta hutang tersebut, OKT1 hanya menjawab OKT1 diarahkan oleh OKT2 untuk meminta hutang itu. Meneliti kepada keterangan OKT1, OKT1 menyatakan tidak mengenali SP1 ini dan hanya pernah nampak sahaja. Pada Mahkamah ia adalah suatu yang tidak munasabah untuk seseorang yang tidak mengenali seseorang dan bukan pemiutang untuk menuntut hutang sedangkan orang yang memberi hutang ada di tempat itu dan hanya duduk di motor sahaja. Sementelahan pula OKT2 lebih mengenali SP1 dan pernah bekerja dengan OKT2 sebagaimana dakwaan OKT2. Tambahan juga pada S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Mahkamah ini adalah suatu yang tidak munasabah dan pelik OKT1 tidak mengenali SP1 tetapi hanya pernah nampak sahaja berikutan keterangan OKT2 menyatakan SP1 ada bekerja membuat wiring dan piping bagi OKT2 untuk SD3 dan SD4 serta Mahendran sedangkan keterangan OKT1 dan OKT2 sendrii mengesahkan OKT1 ini bekerja freelance dengan OKT2. [58] Peguam turut menghujahkan SD3 adalah saksi mata dan ini menunjukkan pembelaan OKT1 dan OKT2 bukanlah suatu fikiran terkemudian. Hujah pembelaan, pendakwaan sepatutnya harus memanggil semula untuk pengecaman sebagai keterangan rebuttal samada SP1 kenal SD3 dan SD4 dan samada SP1 pernah bekerja di rumah SD3 dan SD4. [59] Dengan hormatnya Mahkamah tidak menerima hujahan pembelaan ini. Mahkamah mendapati fakta kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini hendaklah dibezakan dengan fakta kes di dalam kes PP v. Balwant Singh tersebut. Di dalam kes PP v. Balwant Singh, saksi keempat pembelaan (DW4) yang dikatakan sebagai saksi mata telah memberikan keterangan di Mahkamah selepas terbaca di dalam suratkhabar berkenaan tuduhan membunuh terhadap OKT dan DW4 telah diambil penyataannya oleh pihak polis. [60] Berbeza dengan kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, keterangan menujukkan SD3 dan SD4 mengetahui lebih awal berkenaan dengan penangkapan OKT1 dan OKT2. Keterangan menunjukkan SD3 telah tinggal di kawasan perumahan tersebut sejak 55 tahun dahulu. SD3 mengetahui berkenaan penangkapan OKT1 dan OKT2 S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 dua (2) minggu selepas OKT1 dan OKT2 ditangkap tetapi SD3 mendiamkan diri sahaja. Di dalam keteranganya, SD3 menyatakan nampak dua lelaki Bangladesh dari atas rumah. Namun tiada keterangan kepada polis diberikan oleh SD3 dan SD4 bagi membantu polis menjalankan siasatan dengan lebih adil. lroninya di dalam keterangan SP1 dan SP2 menyatakan tidak nampak sesiapa di tempat kejadian. [61] Di dalam keterangannya, SD3 menyatakan terdengar pergaduhan di antara OKT1 dan SP1 di tempat kejadian semasa ingin ke pasar. Pada mahkamah jika SD3 benar-benar nampak kejadian yang berlaku SD3 sepatutnya membuat laporan polis bagi membantu polis menjalankan siasatan seadilnya dan membuktikan bahawa OKT1 dan OKT2 tidak bersalah melakukan rompakan ke atas SP1. [62] Selanjutnya juga, SD3 di dalam keterangannya menyatakan melalui tempat kejadian dalam perjalanannya ke pasar pada jam lebih kurang 7.10 pagi. Keterangan menunjukkan kejadian rompakan berlaku pada jam 7.05 pagi. Justeru adalah jelas SD3 tidak nampak kejadian rompakan melainkan SD3 hanya nampak OKT1 dan OKT 2 di jalan tersebut dan terdengar pergaduhan selain bertanyakan kepada OKT 2 apa yang berlaku. Fakta ini diakui oleh SD3 semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh Timbalan pendakwaraya. Dikemukakan nota keterangan sebagaimana berikut: Q: Kamu sampai di P2, 7 hingga 7.10 minit pagi. Sebelum kamu sampai kamu tak tahu apa berlaku, Setuju? S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 A: Setuju Justeru, keterangan oleh SD3 ini diragui oleh Mahkamah. Oleh yang demikian pada Mahkamah keterangan SD3 tidak membantu pembelaan OKT1 dan OKT2. [63] Mahkamah juga telah meneliti kepada keterangan SD4. Adalah fakta yang jelas SD4 tiada di tempat kejadian semasa rompakan berlaku. Peranan SD4 hanyalah untuk berjumpa dengan bapa saudara SP1 bagi berbincang untuk SP1 menarik balik laporan polisnya berkenaan tangkapan terhadap OKT1 dan OKT2 yang dikatakan pergi ke rumah SP1 untuk mendapatkan bayaran balik wang yang dihutang oleh SP1. Di dalam keterangannya, SD4 mengakui tidak berada di tempat kejadian pada tarikh 13/10/2018 jam 7.05 pagi kerana ketika itu SD4 berada di rumah. [64] Oleh yang demikian berdasarkan kepada keterangan SD4 ini pembelaan menghujahkan penarikan balik laporan polis oleh SP1 bertarikh 17/6/018 (D4) dan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh SD4 bukanlah rekaan semata-mata tetapi benar di mana laporan tarik balik telah dibuat oleh SP1. Meneliti kepada isu ini adalah fakta yang tidak dinafikan terdapatnya laporan tarik balik oleh SP1. Namun tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan penarikan balik laporan polis tersebut adalah disebabkan hutang SP1 dari OKT2. [65] lni berikutan SP1 di dalam keterangannya semasa disoalbalas oleh peguam telah menjelaskan bahawa SP1 menarikbalik laporan polis tersebut kerana mereka tinggal di kawasan yang sama dan ayah OKT2 dan pakcik SP1 adalah kawan rapat. Dan tujuan SP1 S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 menarik balik laporan polis adalah tidak mahu ada masalah. Oleh sebab itu SP1 telah menarik balik laporan polis yang telah dibuatnya. Tiada pada bila-bila masa SP1 menyatakan SP1 menarik balik report disebabkan OKT1 dan OKT2 datang ke rumah SP1 untuk mendapatkan balik wang yang kononnya dihutang oleh SP1 dari OKT2. [66] Mahkamah mendapati walaupun peguam menyoal berkali-kali berkenaan dengan penarikan balik laporan polis yang dibuat oleh SP1, SP1 tetap tegas menyatakan tujuan tarik balik adalah tidak mahu ada masalah pada masa hadapan itu sebabnya SP1 tarik balik laporan polis. Bahkan SP1 tegas menyatakan beliau tidak mengenali OKT1 dan OKT2 dan tidak setuju SP1 berhutang dengan OKT2. SP1 juga tidak setuju beliau laporan palsu. Oleh yang demikian adalah dapatan Mahkamah ini keterangan SD4 tidak menimbulkan keraguan munasabah kepada kes pendakwaan. Sebaliknya pembelaan telah gagal untuk mengemukakan bapa kepada OKT 2 untuk memberikan keterangan bagi mengesahkan keterangan OKT 2 yang telah memaklumkan kepada bapanya mengenai SP 1 yang telah meminjam wang OKT 2 berjumlah RM5000. [67] Dikemukakan nota keterangan semasa pemeriksaan balas SP1 oleh peguam sebagaimana berikut: Q: Apa maksud ingin tarik balik laporan kamu? S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 A: Saya tarikbalik laporan kerana tinggal di kawasan yang sama dan ayah mereka dan uncle saya kawan rapat. Saya tidak mahu mereka dapat penjara. Sebab itu saya tarik balik. Q: Rujuk D4. Apa maksud tidak mahu meneruskan siasatan pihak polis? A: Tidak mahu menimbulkan masalah sebab itu tidak mahu meneruskan dengan siasatan. [68] Pada Mahkamah isu penarikan balik laporan polis oleh SP1 (D4) tidak relevan dengan tindakan yang dihadapi oleh kedua-dua OKT kerana kuasa untuk meneruskan mahupun menarikbalik pertuduhan terletak di tangan Pendakwaraya. Hanya Pendakwaraya yang boleh memutuskan samada meneruskan atau memberhentikan suatu tindakan jenayah sebagaimana diperuntukkan di bawah Perkara 145(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. [69] Mahkamah juga mendapati SD3 di dalam keterangannya menyatakan kerja-kerja wiring dan piping di rumahnya bermula pada 24/2/018 sedangkan keterangan SP1 jelas menyatakan beliau berada di Kuala Ampang hanya pada 14/4/2018 setelah SP1 habis kontrak pekerjaan di Pahang. Fakta keberadaan SP1 di Kuala Ampang bermula 14/4/2018 ini tidak pernah dipertikaikan oleh pembelaan. [70] Mahkamah juga mendapati pembelaan tidak pernah membangkitkan soalan berkenaan samada SP1 pernah melakukan kerja-kerja wiring di rumah SD3 dan SD4 kepada SP1. Sebaliknya S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 peguam hanya bertanyakan kepada SP1 semasa pemeriksaan balas samada SP1 ada membuat kerja- -kerja wiring pada bulan Oktober pada tahun 2018 dan dinafikan oleh SP1. [71] Malahan soalan fakta oleh peguam berkenaan kerja - kerja wiring di bulan Oktober ini juga jelas bercanggah dengan keterangan yang diberikan oleh SD4 di mana beliau menyatakan SP 1 ada membuat kerja - kerja wiring di rumahnya sekitar bulan Februari 2018. Pada Mahkamah jika benar SP1 ada membuat kerja - kerja wiring pada bulan Februari 2018 fakta ini sepatutunya dikemukakan kepada SP1 dari awal lagi kerana fakta ini berada di dalam pengetahuan pembelaan. [72] Di dalam keterangannya, OKT2 memaklumkan menghubungi SP1 melalui nombor 0166719770 untuk kerja dan juga untuk meminta wang yang dipinjam oleh SP1. Pendakwaan menghujahkan nombor 016679770 sebagaimana yang tercatat di laporan polis (P1) adalah nombor telefon bimbit SP2 dan bukannya nombor telefon bimbit SP1. Malahan OKT2 juga semasa disoal balas oleh Timbalan Pendakwa raya mengakui nombor tersebut adalah nombor SP2. Pada Mahkamah jika OKT2 betul mengenali SP1 dan pernah mengesyorkan SP1 untuk melakukan kerja-kerja wiring di rumah SD3 dan SD4 serta Mahendran pastinya OKT2 tahu apakah nombor telefon SP1. Tambahan juga OKT2 mengaku berhubung dan bercakap dengan pinjam dan bukan melalui Ibrahim. Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan pendakwaan bahawa perkara berkenaan hutang adalah rekaan semata-mata. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [73] Pembelaan juga menghujahkan kegagalan untuk memanggil semula SP1, SP2 dan bapa saudara kepada SP1 mengemukakan keterangan pematahan (rebuttal evidence) selepas kes pembelaan utnuk mematahkan dan menidakkan pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh SD1, SD2, SD3 dan SD4 menunjukkan keterangan-keterangan oleh pembelaan adalah benar dan oleh itu pendakwaan gagal untuk membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan yang munasabah. Pembelaan telah merujuk kepada kes Akhbar Jafarisshonestani Mohamad v Public Prosecutor [20141 MLJ 8 bagi menyokong hujahannya di mana Mahkamah menyatakan: "The prosecution had failed to introduce any evidence either during the prosecution case or by way of rebuttal evidence after the defence case to rebut and negative the defence advanced by the appellant. Hence, the prosecution could not be said to have proven their case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant ought to be given the advantage of having raised a reasonable doubt to the prosecutions's case and be entitled to earn an acquittal.” [74] Fakta kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini adalah berbeza dangan fakta kes di dalam kes Akhbar Jafarisshonestani Mohamad v. Public Prosecutor di mana di dalam kes tersebut fakta berkenaan beg yang dirampas yang mengandungi dadah bukan milik OKT tetapi kawannya telah dimaklumkan lebih awal oleh OKT kepada pegawai penyiasat dan fakta ini diakui oleh pegawai penyiasat. [75] Di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini adalah tidak dinafikan pembelaan telah mengemukakan pembelaannya dari awal lagi iaitu kehadiran OKT1 dan OKT2 di hadapan rumah SP1 adalah untuk S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 menuntut hutang yang didakwa dipinjam oleh SP1 dan fakta berkenaan SP1 ada membuat kerja-kerja wiring. Namun peguam tidak pernah membangkitkan kewujudan SD3 dan SD4 semasa kes pendakwaan. Perkara berkenaan SD3. yang ada di tempat kejadian dan menegur OKT2 yang berada di atas motor tidak ditanya kepada SP1 oleh peguam semasa kes pendakwaan. Apatah lagi SP1 dan SP2 menyatakan tiada sesiapa di tempat kejadian semasa rompakan berlaku. [76] Sementelahan juga fakta berkenaan SD3 yang lalu di tempat kejadian dan menegur OKT2 ini di akui tidak pernah di maklumkan kepada pegawai penyiasat oleh OKT1. Dikemukakan nota·keterangan pemeriksaan balas OKT1 oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya sebagaimana berikut: Q: Ada cakap dengan Inspektor Zuhaidi di peringkat awal kejadian, Malathi nampak kejadian? A: Saya tidak beritahu. Justeru, Mahkamah ini berpendapat tidak timbul isu untuk pendakwaan memanggil semula SP1, SP2 dan bapa saudara SP1 untuk pematahan keterangan sebagaimana yang dihujahkan oleh pembelaan. [77] Adalah dapatan fakta Mahkamah ini pendakwaan telah mengemukakan keterangan-keterangannya dengan kukuh di peringkat pendakwaan. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [78] Tugas Mahkamah di akhir kes pembelaan telah dinyatakan dengan jelas di dalam kes Mat v. PP (19631 MLJ 263. Mahkamah telah meneliti kepada keterangan pembelaan oleh OKT-OKT dan mendapati ianya adalah penafian semata-mata. Oleh yang demikian setelah Mahkamah meneliti segala keterangan saksi pendakwaan dan pembelaan secara maksima, Mahkamah mendapati OKT1 dan OKT2 gagal untuk menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan. Oleh yang demikian Mahkamah mendapati OKT1 dan OKT2 bersalah di atas pertuduhan dan disabitkan. [12] To sum up, in scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses who testified for the prosecution, it is very clear from the judgment that the learned trial judge took into consideration not only the demeanour of each of the said witnesses but also the consistency of their evidence and in the final analysis she was satisfied that on the whole, they are witnesses of the truth and there was also nothing improbable in their evidence. This is especially so where the findings of facts rest upon a substratum of oral evidence, the credibility of which is entirely for the trial judge to decide. [13] Dealing with the defence, the learned trial judge had in her thorough judgment make a strong finding of facts in rejecting the defence of both the appellants. She had considered the defence case adequately, objectively and from all angles and held that the explanation and narration of the defence case is highly improbable. The learned trial judge then made a definite finding that the appellants defence of requesting SP1 to repay money owed is merely a bare denial which did not cast a doubt on the prosecution case against the appellants. On the facts, we do not see how the learned judge can be said to be wrong. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 Findings of The Learned High Court Judge [14] As pointed out earlier, the learned trial judge’s finding was upheld by the learned appeal judge in his grounds of judgment. [15] We shall, however, reproduce the learned appeal judge discussion of the appellants defence and their witnesses and his findings. [37] Pertimbangan dan penilaian yang dibuat di atas oleh HMS adalah berdasarkan keterangan di hadapannya dan pengamatan serta penganalisan secara hati-hati versi fakta kedua-dua pihak pendakwaan dan pembelaan oleh beliau. Penilaian keterangan oleh HMS itu bukan sekadar memberi sebab kenapa beliau memdapati versi pembelaan adalah tidak munasabah dan tidak dipercayai malah berdasarkan kepercayaan HMS dan kredibiliti P1 dan P2 serta saksi mereka. Setelah diteliti HMS tidak ada membuat sebarang dapatan yang bertentangan dengan keterangan yang dikemukakan dihadapannya. Segala dapatan adalah hasil pemerhatiannya dan penilaian serta analisa HMS terhadap keterangan itu. Lagi pun pemerhatian HMS terhadap versi pembelaan juga berdasarkan fakta bahawa versi SD3 yang dikatakan berada dan bersembang dengan P2 di tempat kejadian semasa P1 meminta hutang dan bertanya kepada P2 apa yang berlaku tidak pernah dibangkitkan kepada saksi pendakwa SP1 dan SP2 memberi keterangan merupakan dapatan yang betul dan telah menjadikan versi pembelaan perayu tidak dipercayai oleh HMS. Dengan itu Mahkamah ini dapati versi pinjaman wang oleh akan sewajarnya menganggu dapatan HMS tersebut. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [38] Setelah mengamati penghakiman HMS, Mahkamah ini mendapati HMS tidak pernah meletakkan beban kepada P1 dan P2 untuk membuktikan pembelaannya sebaliknya HMS hanya membuat perbandingan keterangan SD4 mengenai soal penarikan balik repot oleh oleh SP1 disebabkan SP1 meminjam wang dengan P2 dalam menilai kredibiliti penceritaan Perayu mengenai pinjaman wang oleh SP1 dari P2 itu. [39] Mahkamah ini bersetuju malah menjadi kaedah undang-undang yang mantap bahawa seseorang Tertuduh tidak diperlukan membuktikan apa-apa berhubung dengan ketidakbersalahannya dan tidak ada anggapan bertentangan harus dibuat terhadap Tertuduh jika gagal mengemukakan mana-mana saksi. Namun begitu di dalam kes ini bukannya tujuan Majistret ini mengenakan apa-apa bebanan ke atas Perayu untuk membuktikan pembelaan. Setelah Mahkamah ini mengamati keseluruhan penghakiman Tuan Majistret itu mendapati Tuan Majistret bertindak menilai akan kredibiliti Perayu dengan naratif pembelaan yang dibawanya tanpa Razman mengesahkan perkara yang sama dan akhirnya tidak mempercayai naratif tersebut dan telah tidak menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah atas kes pihak pendakwaan. Dalam kes Tobechi Chinonso Madu v Public Prosecutor {2015] 1 LNS 57 Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan prinsip bahawa: [17] In any event, since the appellant had a legal burden to discharge (to disprove knowledge) it was his duty to call Ossy to give evidence and not for the police to investigate if it was true that Ossy had asked him to carry the soap boxes: Baharom v. PP [1960) 1 LNS 9; [1960) MLJ 429; Liew S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 Siew & Anor v. PP [1969] 1 LNS 90; Chu Tak Fai v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ 789. Hence, since Ossy was not called to give evidence there was no way the court could verify the truth of what Ossy told him at Lagos Airport. In fact the evidence is hearsay and inadmissible as the object was to prove the truth of what Ossy told him: PP v. Subramaniam [1956] 1 LNS 115; [1956] MLJ 220 P.C. Begitu juga dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Naphaporn Tanjit v PP [2018) MLJU 1380 ldrus Harun JCA telah berlandaskan penghakimannya dalam perkara yang sama berdasarkan kes di atas dan seterusnya mengatakan: [34] Therefore, since Amu and the Thai lady were not called to give evidence, the court was in no position to determine and ascertain the truth of the accused's testimony that Amu gave her the suitcase and that the Thai lady called her to ask about the same for such evidence is hearsay and inadmissible. No weight therefore ought to be given to the evidence of the defence on this point. In PP v Lim Hock Boon [2009] 3 CLJ 430 the Federal Court at page 440 held:- “(iv). The respondent failed to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. His defence was a mere denial. The court could give little weight to the respondent's evidence that his brother Lim Hock Kee had borrowed his car earlier because he had failed to call this person as a witness.” Sementara dalam Lim Son Heng v Public Prosecutor [2014]6 MLJ 109, Mahkamah Rayuan dalam menilai versi dan kredibiti Perayu mengatakan: S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [21] We turn next to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant of misdirection in law by the learned High Court judge by way of non-direction in that he had failed to adequately consider the defence of the appellant that the said premises was rented by him for the use of 'Kai Chai' and he has nothing whatsoever to do with that premises. We did not see any merit in this argument. This version about 'Kai Chai' only appeared for the first time during the defence stage. If at all the appellant rented the premises for Kai Chai and he was asked on that material date to hand over bag to someone in Old Klang Road by Kai Chai, this defence should be raised at the earliest possible stage and ought to be firmly put to the prosecution witnesses to test the veracity of his version. The introduction of this 'belated version' at this stage would have certainly weakened the appellant's credibility. In Tan Kim Ho & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2009] 3 MLJ 151; [2009] 3 CLJ 236, the Federal Court commented the effect of such belated disclosure: This is however not to say that there is any burden placed on the accused to disprove any guilt or to prove innocence, it is only assessing the credibility of a witness, in this case the appellant's credibility, in order to determine whether an accused was telling the truth consideration is whether he had indicated his defence during the prosecution's case. Oleh itu tidak ada salah arah di lakukan oeh HMS dalam mencapai dapatannya. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 Gagal menilai keterangan SD3 yang menyokong kes pembelaan mengikut perspektif yang betul. [40] HMS telah menilai keterangan SD3 secara teliti dan memutuskan untuk tidak mempercayai keterangan SD3. Penilaian HMS atas keterangan SD3 ada berdasarkan perspektif jalur SD3 tidak mengikut perspektif yang betul. Penilaian HMS atas keterangan SD3 sebagaimana berikut: [58] Peguam turut menghujahkan SD3 adalah saksi mata dan ini menunjukkan pembelaan OKT 1 dan OKT2 bukanlah suatu fikiran terkemudian. Hujah pembelaan pendakwaan sepatutnya harus memanggil semula untuk pengecaman sebagai keterangan rebuttal samada SP1 kenal SD3 dan SD4 dan samada SP1 pernah bekerja di rumah SD3 dan SD4. Peguam yang bijaksana telah merujuk kepada kes PP v Dato Balwant Singh [2003] 3 MLJ 395. [59] Dengan hormatnya Mahkamah tidak menerima hujahan pembelaan ini. Mahkamah mendapati fakta kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini hendaklah dibezakan dengan fakta kes di dalam kes PP v Balwant Singh tersebut. Di dalam kes PP v Balwant Singh, saksi keempat pembelaan (DW4) yang dikatakan sebagai saksi mata telah memberikan keterangan di Mahkamah selepas terbaca di dalam suratkhabar berkenaan tuduhan membunuh terhadap OKT dan DW4 telah diambil penyataannya oleh pihak polis. [60] Berbeza dengan kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini keterangan menujukkan SD3 dan SD4 mengetahui lebih awal berkenaan dengan penangkapan OKT 1 dan OKT2. Keterangan menunjukkan S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 SD3 telah tinggal di kawasan perumahan tersebut sejak 55 tahun dahulu. SD3 mengetahui berkenaan penangkapan OKT 1 dan OKT2 dua (2) minggu selepas OKT 1 dan OKT2 ditangkap tetapi SD 3 mendiamkan diri sahaja. Di dalam keteranganya SD3 menyatakan nampak dua lelaki Bangladesh dari atas rumah. Namun tiada keterangan kepada polis diberikan oleh SD3 dan SD4 bagi membantu polis menjalankan siasatan dengan lebih adil. lroninya di dalam keterangan SP1 dan SP2 menyatakan tidak nampak sesiapa di tempat kejadian. [61] Di dalam keterangannya, SD3 menyatakan terdengar pergaduhan di antara OKTI dan SP1 di tempat kejadian semasa ingin ke pasar. Pada Mahkamah jika SD3 benar-benar nampak kejadian yang berlaku, SD3 sepatutnya membuat laporan polis bagi membantu polis menjalankan siasatan seadilnya dan membuktikan bahawa OKT1 dan OKT2 tidak bersalah melakukan rompakan ke atas SP1. [62] Selanjutnya juga SD3 di dalam keterangannya menyatakan melalui tempat kejadian dalam perjalanannya ke pasar pada jam lebihkurang 7.10 pagi. Keterangan menunjukkan kejadian rompakan berlaku pada jam 7.05 pagi. Justeru adalah jelas SD3 tidak nampak kejadian rompakan melainkan SD3 hanya nampak OKT1 dan OKT2 di jalan tersebut dan terdengar pergaduhan selain bertanyakan kepada OKT2 apa ini diakui oleh SD3 semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya. Dikemukakan nota keterangan sebagaimana berikut: S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 Q: Kamu sampai di P2, 7 hingga 7.10 minit pagi. Sebelum kamu sampai kamu tak tahu apa berlaku, Setuju? A: Setuju Justeru, keterangan oleh SD3 ini diragui oleh Mahkamah. Oleh yang demikian pada Mahkamah keterangan SD3 tidak membantu pembelaan OKT1 dan OKT2. [41] Berdasarkan alasan yang rayuan P1 dan P2 atas sabitan di tolak. Sabitan atas kedua-dua Perayu adalah dikekalkan.” [18] To summarise, we find that the learned appeal judge had gone through the evidence both the prosecution and defence very carefully, gave his reasons why he accepted or did not accept certain evidence and correctly came to the conclusion that he did. Our Decisions [19] We see no necessity for a detailed discussion of the evidence presented. It is covered in the reasons of the trial and appellate court in a manner which we find convincing. There have been concurrent findings of facts in the lower court. Our decisions will therefore be brief. [20] Before us the conviction was heavily attacked on two main grounds. The argument on the first ground was that by the learned trial judge failed to appreciate both the appellants defence fairly, properly and adequately. The second ground of appeal was that the concerns the alleged gang S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 robbery charge preferred against both the appellants with was not proven by the prosecution. [21] We shall deal with the first ground where the learned counsel for the appellants drew the attention of this honourable court to the fact that SP1 had borrowed money from the second appellant somewhere in March 2018 to renew his visa and SP1 promised to return the money in April 2018 but had failed to do so. Thus, the appellants were there to collect the money and their defence was supported by the testimony of DW3 who was present at the time of incident. [22] We have reproduced the learned trial judge’s analysis of the defence and her conclusion thereon. It is clear from her detailed judgment that she found that the defence of money owed between SP1 and the second appellant is merely a bare denial and did not raise any reasonable doubt in her mind. [23] For the ease of reference, the relevant passages in her grounds of judgement are reproduced herein: “[18] Di dalam kes ini, keterangan oleh SP1 dan keterangan SP2 adalah relevan untuk diteliti oleh Mahkamah. Mahkamah setelah meneliti keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh SP1, mempercayai keterangannya sebagai keterangan yang kredible dan boleh dipercayai. SP1 telah memberikan keterangannya dalam bahasa Bangladesh dengan menggunakan jurubahasa Bangladesh yang menterjemahkannya ke dalam bahasa Malaysia kepada Mahkamah. Mahkamah telah menilai keterangan SP1 dan mempercayai kredibliti SP1 adalah benar. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 [19] Melihat kepada demenour SP1 semasa memberikan keterangannya Mahkamah berpuashati SP1 adalah saksi yang kredibel dan keterangan oleh SP1 adalah sangat dipercayai dan jujur dalam memberikan keterangannya. Oleh yang demikian tiada sebab untuk Mahkamah tidak mempercayai keterangan SP1. [20] Keterangan SP1 tetap utuh dan tidak bercanggah walaupun di soal berkali-kali oleh peguam semasa pemeriksaan balas bahawa kehadiran OKT1 dan OKT2 ke rumah SP1 adalah bagi tujuan untuk mendapatkan kembali wang yang dipinjam oleh SP1 dari OKT2. SP1 tegas menyatakan tidak mengenali OKT1 dan OKT2 dan tidak pernah meminjam wang dari OKT2. Mahkamah mendapati peguam OKT1 dan OKT2 banyak kali menyoal SP1 berkenaan kedatangan OKT1 dan OKT2 ke rumah SP1 adalah untuk menuntut hutang yang tetap dinafikan dengan tegas oleh SP1. [53] Oleh yang demikian timbul keraguan bagaimanakah SP1 boleh membuat pinjaman wang sebanyak RM5000 dari OKT2 pada bulan Mac 2018 sedangkan keterangan SP1 adalah jelas yang SP1 hanya berada di Kuala Ampang di rumah bapa saudaranya bermula dari 14/4/2018. Fakta ini tidak pernah dipertikaikan oleh peguam. Malahan Mahkamah meragui fakta berkenaan pinjaman wang ini apabila peguam OKT sendiri semasa pemeriksaan balas terhadap SP1 bertanyakan soalan kepada SP1 samada ada meminjam wang pada bulan Oktober 2018 dan bukannya Mac 2018 sedangkan fakta itu adalah keterangan bagi pembelaan. Justeru pada Mahkamah pembelaan OKT1 dan OKT2 berkenaan pinjaman wang oleh SP1 hanyalah rekaan semata-mata. S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 [54] Mahkamah juga mendapati keterangan oleh OKT2 semasa diperiksa balas oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya mengakui tidak pernah memaklumkan kepada pegawai penyiasat semasa rakaman percakapan berkenaan pinjaman wang oleh SP1 ini. Pada Mahkamah fakta ini adalah sangat relevan yang seharusnya dimaklumkan kepada pegawai penyiasat untuk membuktikan dan mengesahkan kehadiran OKT1 dan OKT2 di rumah SP1 adalah untuk menuntut hutang kerana fakta ini berada di dalam pengetahuan OKT1 dan OKT2 sendiri dan asas pembelaan. Kegagalan oleh OKT2 untuk memaklumkan perkara ini semasa rakaman percakapan tidak dijelaskan dalam pemeriksaan semula. Kegagalan OKT2 mahupun OKT1 untuk memaklumkan perkara ini kepada pegawai penyiasat telah menimbulkan keraguan kepada Mahkamah.” [55] Dikemukakan nota keterangan pemeriksaan balas OKT2 oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya sebagaimana berikut: Q: Diawal-awal kamu ditangkap ada kamu bagitahu lnspektor tentang pinjaman ini? A: Saya ada beritahu Inspektor Zuhadi Q: Sewaktu rakaman percakapan, ada bagitahu? A: Saya ada beritahu Q: Kamu ada beritahu tentang pinjaman wang ini sewaktu rakaman percakapan kamu diambil oleh lnspektor Zuhadi? S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 A: Saya tidak beritahu [24] Based on all these pieces of evidence, it is impossible to doubt the credibility and veracity of SP1 and the consistency of his evidence. In the final analysis, we were satisfied that on the whole, he is a witness of the truth. With respect, this ground has no merits. [25] We now come to the second ground. Much had been canvassed by the learned counsel in support of this ground. The appellants’ particular complaint before us is that the charge preferred against the appellants was never proven. No evidence was led against the appellants by the prosecution. To prove that both the appellants had robbed SPl of one handphone (Redmi Note 5) and one wallet where the loss suffered was estimated to be at about RM 600.00. This complaint was premised on the fact that who, the appellants were apprehended shortly after the alleged incident, none of the items were found on them and or produced in court during trial for identification and / or verification. [26] We do not wish to repeat the evidence presented and reasons given by the learned trial judge and the appellate judge, which we have already reproduced. [27] In our view, the non-discovery and non-production of the robbed item is not fatal under section 395 of Penal Code. Ultimately, it does not change the fact that SP1 was robbed by the appellants. This ground too fails. [28] In Gunalan Ramachandran & Ors v. PP [2004] 4 CLJ 551, Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA (as he then was) held that:- S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 “ …….as far as I am aware, there is no law that the exhibit recovered must be produced in court and if not the prosecution's case must necessarily fall. It may or it may not, again depending on the facts and the circumstances of each case. Even in a murder trial, the dead body is not produced in court. In Sunny Ang v. Public Prosecutor [1966] 2 MLJ 195 (FC) the body of the victim was not even recovered, yet the accused was convicted of murder. What the prosecution has to prove is that a particular person had died and the accused had caused his death. The death of the victim is not proved by looking at his remains in court, but by evidence of witnesses, the medical report, the identity card, the photographs and so on. Similarly, in a drug trafficking case, the drug may be lost or destroyed subsequent to it having been analysed by the chemist, there may be a gap in the chain of the people keeping custody of it subsequent to it having been analysed by the chemist until the date of trial, but so long as there is no doubt that the drug analysed by the chemist was the same one that was recovered in the case and it is in respect of that drug that the accused is charged, and there is a reasonable explanation as to how it was lost or destroyed or the reason for the gap, there is no reason why the prosecution's case should fall. “ [29] Before parting with this appeal, one final point must be made. The duty of an appellate court in dealing with an appeal where there has been concurrent findings of facts by the lower courts was considered Hashim Yeop A. Sani J (as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v. Munusamy [1980] 2 MLJ 133. His Lordship succinctly laid down the principle on this point: S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 “As pointed out earlier, the learned Magistrate’s finding was upheld by the learned appeal judge in his ground of judgment we have gone through the evidence thoroughly ourselves and have come to the same conlcusion. Where there have been concurrent findings of facts in the lower courts it should not be made a practice in the appeal court to review these: (a) Concurrent findings of facts unless it is shown that there was no evidence to support the inferences drawn in the lower courts. Two Privy council cases are relevant on this point. The first is Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali, where in a short judgment Lord Diplock said that it was not the practice of the Privy Council to review concurrent findings of facts from courts in Malaysia and dismissed the appeal. (b) In Hitam bin Abdullah v. Kok Foong Yee & Anor, this point was dealt with in slightly more depth by Sir Harry Gibbs. In his judgment his Lordship emphasised that “It is very well established that as a general rule, their Lordsh’ps' Board will decline to interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts on a pure question of fact”. The judgment went on as follows:- (c) “The nature of the exceptions that will justify a departure from the Boards’s settled practice are set ot in Srimati Bibhabati Devi v. Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy(1946) A.C 508 at page 521. Lord Thankerton there said: S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 “That in order obviate the practice, there must be some miscarriage of justice or violation of some principle of law or procedure.” (d) He defined “miscarriage of justice: and then continued: “That the violation of some principles of law or procedure must be such an erroneous proposition of law that if that proposition be corrected the finding cannot stand; or it may be the neglect of some principle of law or procedure, whose application will have the same effect. The question whether there is evidence on which the courts could arrive at their finding is such a question of law” Conclusion [30] We had scrutinized both the grounds of judgment with some care and we have also listened to what counsel for the appellants submitted at the appeal before us. However, we did not find error in the appreciation of the defence case by the learned trial judge and the appeal judge. Neither did we see any mistake of law or facts, any miscarriage of justice or any valid reason for us to interfere with their final decisions. [31] The findings were premised on the credibility of witnesses which is within the domain of the trial judge. We found the evidence against the appellants overwhelming. Therefore, the conviction against the appellants is safe. [32] On the issue of sentence, we took into account everything advanced by the learned counsel in mitigation, the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 leaving the matter in our hands. The enormity and seriousness of the crime need no further discussion. The offence committed by the appellants demanded appropriate punishment so as to reflect public abhorrence of such crimes. We were not satisfied that the sentences were wrong either in law or that they were manifestly excessive or inadequate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. [33] We unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the High Court. Date: 20 December 2023 - sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Counsel For the Appellant : Geethan Ram (Eu Kah Mun with him) Geethan Ram (Petaling Jaya) For the Respondents : Sarulatha (Deputy Public Prosecutor) S/N upvXaL5aJ0ulLo5iMUw3mg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-12A-37-08/2023

PERAYU HELEN LEE RESPONDEN ENCORP STRAND GARDEN OFFICE JMB

Summary Judgment – Appeal – Counterclaim – Limitation – Triable Issues – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rule 3.Stay of Proceedings – Appeal – Pending related action – Principles governing stay of proceedings – Delay – Existence of special circumstances.Limitation – Whether Limitation Act 1953 applicable – Limitation Act 1953, section 6(1)(d) – Strata Management Act 2013, sections 105(2) and 106.

16/01/2024

YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3b2930de-7b08-4de0-86d5-98a5ec274a3f&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: BA-12A-37-08/2023 DAN BA-12A-38-08/2023 ANTARA HELEN LEE (NO. K/P: 640521-13-5126) … PERAYU DAN ENCORP STRAND GARDEN OFFICE JMB (NO. PENDAFTARAN : 0315) … RESPONDEN (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Sesyen di Petaling Jaya, Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Guaman No. BB-A52-56-12/2022 Antara ENCORP STRAND GARDEN OFFICE JMB (NO. PENDAFTARAN : 0315) … PLAINTIF Dan HELEN LEE (NO. K/P: 640521-13-5126) … DEFENDAN) 16/01/2024 12:39:22 BA-12A-37-08/2023 Kand. 26 S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] There are two appeals before me, Appeal No 37 and Appeal No 38. I heard both Appeals on 14 December, 2023. [2] These appeals have brought into focus situations involving claims, counterclaims and interlocutory applications initiated by the same parties and these claims and applications are intertwined. [3] The task of this Court is to unravel these supposedly interrelated claims and applications and decide on the overriding issues presented in these two appeals. The Parties and the Background Facts [4] The Appellant (the Defendant in the Sessions Court), Helen Lee, is the owner of a Penthouse unit. The Appellant had purchased the property from a Developer after having entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the latter. The Appellant had also signed a Deed of Mutual Covenants with the said Developer. [5] The Respondent (the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court), Encorp Strand Garden Office JMB, is a Joint Management Body. [6] The Respondent had commenced an action against the Appellant in the Sessions Court on 21 December, 2022, claiming for maintenance S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 and sinking fund fees/costs against the Appellant, as owner of the Penthouse unit. [7] The Respondent had successfully obtained summary judgment against the Appellant in the Sessions Court. This appeal, that is, Appeal No 37, is against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in granting summary judgment to the Respondent. [8] In a separate Action before the Shah Alam High Court (“Suit 343”), the Appellant had filed a suit against the Developer and the Respondent, seeking a declaration that the Sale and Purchase Agreement and the Deed of Mutual Covenants that the Appellant had signed with the Developer is null and void. [9] The Respondent successfully applied to the High Court for the action against it in Suit 343 to be struck out. [10] Suit 343 is ongoing, between the Appellant and the Developer. [11] In Suit 343, the Respondent had also filed a counterclaim. That counterclaim by the Respondent against the Appellant was for the payment of maintenance and sinking fund fees/costs owed by the Appellant. As the Respondent had succeeded to have the claim against it struck out in Suit 343, the Respondent was advised to withdraw the counterclaim and to file the counterclaim via a fresh and separate action. [12] As noted in paras [6] and [7] above, the Respondent commenced a fresh action in the Sessions Court against the Appellant on 21 December, 2022. Through a Notice of Application dated 11 April, 2023, the S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Respondent applied and succeeded in obtaining summary judgment at the Sessions Court. [13] The present Appeal No 37 by the Appellant is an appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in granting summary judgment to the Respondent. [14] Before the Sessions Court, the Appellant had also applied to the learned Sessions Court Judge to stay the proceedings, on the ground that there is Suit 343 before the High Court. It was the Appellant’s contention that the matter before the Sessions Court should be stayed until Suit 343 has been decided. The application for stay was made on 14 June, 2023. The learned Session Court Judge refused to grant the stay order. [15] Both the decisions in granting summary judgment and in refusing to grant an order for a stay was made on 24 July, 2023. [16] The present Appeal No 38 by the Appellant is an appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in refusing to grant a stay order. The Issues [17] The primary issue in Appeal No 37 is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in fact and in law in granting summary judgment to the Respondent. [18] Arising from this main issue are the following subsidiary issues, namely: S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 1. Whether a counterclaim is a defence or a set-off; and 2. Whether limitation has set in to bar part of the claim and thus rendering the granting of summary judgment as inappropriate. [19] As for Appeal No 38, the principal poser is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in refusing to grant the stay order as sought by the Appellant. Appeal No 38 [20] This Court shall first deal with Appeal No 38. [21] The Appellant’s case, in seeking a stay order, is premised on the argument that if she were successful in Suit 343, she will not be liable for the claim brought by the Respondent against her. [22] The Appellant relied on Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd & Ors v Atsa Architects Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 492; [2022] MLJU 2384; [2022] MLRHU 2022 where the High Court had propounded “the efficient and fair resolution of the dispute as a whole” test. In addition, the Appellant also cited the case of Ong Koh Hou v Da Land Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] 5 AMR 269; [2019] 4 CLJ 622; [2018] MLJU 778; [2018] 5 MLRA 648. [23] In reply, the Respondent pointed out that even if the Appellant were to be successful, her rights are not affected nor is she prejudiced. According to the Respondent, the Appellant has a right to seek indemnity from the Developer. S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [24] The Respondent further alluded to the fact that the Appellant had only sought an order for a stay of proceedings after a lapse of 7 months. On this ground of delay, the Respondent relied on the case of Ajaib Singh v Jeffrey Fernandez [1971] 1 MLJ 139. [25] The Respondent cited Universal Trustee (M) Bhd v Lambang Pertama Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 5 AMR 57; [2014] 1 LNS 1437; [2015] & MLJ 305; [2014] MLRHU 458 and MCAT Gen Sdn Bhd v Celcom (M) Bhd [2007] 6 AMR 168; [2007] 10 CLJ 375; [2007] 8 MLJ 107; [2007] 1 MLRH 199 for the proposition that a party seeking an order for stay of proceedings will need to show the existence of special circumstances. [26] The Respondent also referred to Jadgis Singh a/l Banta Singh v Outlet Rank (M) Sdn Bhd [2013] 3 CLJ 47; [2013] 4 MLJ 213; [2013] 3 MLRA 104 which enumerated the principles governing the stay of proceedings and drew this Court’s attention to the “rare and compelling circumstances” prerequisite as explained by the Court of Appeal and High Court in Ptotasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee & Anor Appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] 1 MLJU 993; [2018] 6 MLRA 674 and Kerajaan Malaysia v Golden Citrus Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 6 AMR498; [2022] 7 CLJ 631; [2022] MLJU 1464; [2022] MLRHU 1294 respectively. The Decision of this Court [27] On the delay point, the Appellant clarified that Suit 343 had originally been scheduled for trial from 6 – 9 June, 2023. However, she was informed on 6 June, 2023 that the trial had to be adjourned to 19, 25 and 26 April, 2024. If the trial of Suit 343 as originally scheduled for June, 2023 had taken place, the Appellant said that there would not have been a need S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 for her to apply for a stay of proceedings. Nevertheless, upon learning of the development that had taken place, she then filed the stay application. [28] This Court is satisfied that the delay ground as raised by the Respondent has been satisfactorily explained by the Appellant. [29] On the substantive issue as to whether the Appellant’s application for a stay of the proceedings ought to be granted, the result would depend on the factual matrix of the case. [30] The Respondent is at liberty to pursue its remedy against the Appellant. Likewise, the Appellant is entitled under the law to seek recourse against the Developer. There are a number of ways in which the Appellant could have exercised or enforced her rights against the Developer. One such avenue is by way of third-party proceedings. Even though the Appellant had chosen not to invoke Order 16 of the Rules of Court, 2012, her rights to seek the appropriate remedy against the Developer is not in any way affected by the outcome of the case brought against her by the Respondent. [31] In view of the reasoning, Appeal No 38 is dismissed with costs. [32] The Appellant is to pay the Respondent costs of RM10,000, subject to allocator. S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Appeal No 37 [33] In appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in granting summary judgment to the Respondent, the Appellant has raised a number of grounds. [34] The crux of the arguments advanced by the Appellant is that there are triable issues warranting a trial. In other words, there exists issues or questions which ought to be tried within the meaning of Order 14 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012. Accordingly, the Appellant argued that summary judgment should not have been entered in favour or the Respondent. Two of the grounds raised by the Appellant to support her appeal to overturn the learned Sessions Court Judge’s decision to enter summary judgment in favour of the Respondent that warrant consideration in this appeal are addressed in the ensuing paragraphs. [35] The first relates to the counterclaim by the Appellant. The contention in the counterclaim here is that since the Respondent had failed to discharge their duties and obligations pursuant to section 5 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 and section 21 of the Strata Management Act 2013 in maintaining the property, the Appellant is entitled to claim damages against the Respondent. The allegations here relate to, inter alia, the maintenance of the glass bubble lift, leaking ceilings and a litany of other complaints relating to the maintenance of the property/premises. [36] This raises the question of whether the counterclaim amounts to a triable issue. S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [37] The Appellant also raised the point that part of the Respondent’s claim is time barred. The Appellant relied on section 6(1)(d) of the Limitation Act 1953 and argued that “any amount claimed for the period of time prior to 22 January, 2016 is time-barred and should not be allowed, and the amount should be deducted from the total claim” by the Respondent. The Appellant also cited the case of Golden Expansion Sdn Bhd v Dubon Bhd [2018] AMEJ 0687; [2018] 1 LNS 837; [2018] MLJU 797; [2018] MLRHU 678. [38] On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that its claim is not barred by the Limitation Act 1953. The Respondent relied on section 105(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013. The relevant section 105 provides as follows: Section 105 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to hear and determine any claims specified in Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule and where the total amount in respect of which an award of the Tribunal is sought does not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand ringgit or such other amount as may be prescribed to substitute the total amount. (2) For the avoidance of doubt, the Limitation Act 1953 [Act 254] shall not apply to the proceedings of the Tribunal. (3) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not extend to any claim in which the title to any land, or any estate or interest in land, or any franchise, is in question. S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [39] The Respondent acknowledged that section 105 is concerned with the jurisdiction of the Strata Management Tribunal established under Part IX of the said Act and matters that are heard and determined by the Tribunal, as opposed to the Court. However, as the Respondent is at liberty pursuant to section 34(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 to commence a dispute before the Tribunal or the Court, the Respondent reasoned that section 105 should equally apply to a matter before a Court. [40] Section 34 of the Strata Management Act 2013 governs the procedure on recovery if sums due and sub-section (2) reads as follows: If any sum remains unpaid by the purchaser or parcel owner at the end of the period specified in the notice under subsection (1), the developer or the joint management body, as the case may be, may file a summons or claim in a court of competent jurisdiction or in the Tribunal for the recovery of the said sum or as an alternative to recovery under this section, resort to recovery under section 35. [41] The Respondent drew further support from the following cases, namely, Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd v JMB Perdana Exclusive and Tropics [2017] 1 LNS 1035; [2017] MLJU 1020; [2017] MLRHU 685 (“Saujana Triangle”), Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon v Tam Cheng Meng [2018] 3 AMR 597; [2018] 8 CLJ 361; [2018] 8 MLJ 574; [2018] MLRHU 394 (“Tam Cheng Meng”), and Badan Pengurusan Megan Avenue I v Harcharan S Sidhu & Anor [2017] 4AMR 711; [2017] 9 CLJ 563; [2017] 11 MLJ 736]; [2017] 6 MLRH 64 (“Badan Pengurusan Megan Avenue I”). These cases have decided, by logical implication, that section 105(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 shall apply with equal S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 force when a developer of a joint management body opts to file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. [42] Last but not least, the Respondent also relied on the concept of “a running account”, as a cause of action known to the common law. In this regard, the Respondent cited the case of Bajaj Textiles Ltd v Gian Singh & Co Ltd [1968] 1 MLJ 279. [43] In response to the above authorities, the Appellant urged this Court to refer to the section 106 of the Strata Management Act 2013. That section states as follows: Section 106 Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Clause (1) Where a claim is filed with the Tribunal and the claim is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the issues in dispute in that claim, whether as shown in the initial claim or as emerging in the course of the hearing, shall not be the subject of proceedings between the same parties in any court unless— a) the proceedings before the court were commenced before the claim was filed with the Tribunal; or b) the claim before the Tribunal is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out. (2) Where paragraph (1)(a) applies, the issues in dispute in the claim to which those proceedings relate, whether as shown in the initial claim or emerging in the course of the hearing, shall not be the subject of proceedings between the same parties before the S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Tribunal unless the claim before the court is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out. (3) For the purpose of this section, a claim shall be deemed to have been made with the Tribunal when section 108 has been complied with. [44] On the basis of this section 106 of the Strata Management Act 2013, the Appellant argued that “when a claim that falls under the jurisdiction of the tribunal is brought to a court of law, such exclusivity no longer applies to the claimant”. [45] It is also significant that the Appellant had also referred to the decision of the Federal Court in Dubon Ltd (in liquidation) v Wisma Cosway Management Corp [2020] 5 AMR 33; [2020] 6 CLJ 589; [2020] 4 MLJ 288; [2020] 3 MLRA 555 (“Dubon”), which she submitted had reaffirmed the decision of the High Court in Golden Expansion Sdn Bhd v Dubon Bhd [2018] AMEJ 0687; [2018] 1 LNS 837; [2018] MLJU 797; [2018] MLRHU 678. The High Court had held that section 6(1)(d) of the Limitation Act 1953 applied in that case. The Decision of this Court [46] On the issue of the counterclaim, the learned Sessions Court Judge very ably dealt with this question at paragraphs [29] – [45] of his Ground of Judgment. [47] It is trite that a counterclaim does not give rise to a triable issue. Reference can be made to Permodalan Plantations Sdn Bhd v Rachuta S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 MLJ 157 and Ronald Quay Sdn Bhd v Maheswary Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 322. [48] The arguments advanced, together with the authorities cited, by both the Appellant and Respondent relating to the limitation ground demand serious deliberation. [49] It is vital that Dubon, being a decision of the apex court, is carefully examined and understood. [50] The sole question before the Federal Court in Dubon was “Whether the right of a Joint Management Body or a Management Corporation to collect and receive payment from a proprietor under sections 33 and 77 of the Strata Management Act 2013 respectively, gives it a lawful preference as a secured creditor over the assets of a company in liquidation?” The question of the application or exclusion of the Limitation Act 1953 was not considered by the Federal Court. Dubon is not authority to support the Appellant’s contention that since the claim in this case is before the court and not the Strata Management Tribunal, section 105(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 will not apply. [51] This Court is persuaded by the reasonings set out in Saujana Triangle, Tam Cheng Meng and Badan Pengurusan Megan Avenue I. [52] In view of the above findings, section 6(1)(d) of the Limitation Act 1953 does not apply to the present case and this limitation ground has no bearing on the summary judgment application. [53] The Decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge is affirmed. S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [54] However, the interest awarded should be amended to 5% per annum and compounded interest will also be adjusted accordingly. [55] Appeal No 38 is dismissed with costs. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent costs of RM10,000, subject to allocator. Dated: 16 January, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Manpal Singh Sacdev a/l Manjit Singh with Helmi bin Zaharin for the Appellant (Messrs. Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners) S. Sivanesan with Noreha binti Othman for the Respondent (Messrs. Nesan Cheng & Co.) S/N 3jApOwh74E2G1Zil7CdKPw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-12A-38-08/2023

PERAYU HELEN LEE RESPONDEN ENCORP STRAND GARDEN OFFICE JMB

Summary Judgment – Appeal – Counterclaim – Limitation – Triable Issues – Rules of Court 2012, Order 14 rule 3.Stay of Proceedings – Appeal – Pending related action – Principles governing stay of proceedings – Delay – Existence of special circumstances.Limitation – Whether Limitation Act 1953 applicable – Limitation Act 1953, section 6(1)(d) – Strata Management Act 2013, sections 105(2) and 106.

16/01/2024

YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e6445f8f-82c8-4852-9360-07c50fdac1e9&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: BA-12A-37-08/2023 DAN BA-12A-38-08/2023 ANTARA HELEN LEE (NO. K/P: 640521-13-5126) … PERAYU DAN ENCORP STRAND GARDEN OFFICE JMB (NO. PENDAFTARAN : 0315) … RESPONDEN (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Sesyen di Petaling Jaya, Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Guaman No. BB-A52-56-12/2022 Antara ENCORP STRAND GARDEN OFFICE JMB (NO. PENDAFTARAN : 0315) … PLAINTIF Dan HELEN LEE (NO. K/P: 640521-13-5126) … DEFENDAN) 16/01/2024 12:17:09 BA-12A-38-08/2023 Kand. 25 S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] There are two appeals before me, Appeal No 37 and Appeal No 38. I heard both Appeals on 14 December, 2023. [2] These appeals have brought into focus situations involving claims, counterclaims and interlocutory applications initiated by the same parties and these claims and applications are intertwined. [3] The task of this Court is to unravel these supposedly interrelated claims and applications and decide on the overriding issues presented in these two appeals. The Parties and the Background Facts [4] The Appellant (the Defendant in the Sessions Court), Helen Lee, is the owner of a Penthouse unit. The Appellant had purchased the property from a Developer after having entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the latter. The Appellant had also signed a Deed of Mutual Covenants with the said Developer. [5] The Respondent (the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court), Encorp Strand Garden Office JMB, is a Joint Management Body. [6] The Respondent had commenced an action against the Appellant in the Sessions Court on 21 December, 2022, claiming for maintenance S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 and sinking fund fees/costs against the Appellant, as owner of the Penthouse unit. [7] The Respondent had successfully obtained summary judgment against the Appellant in the Sessions Court. This appeal, that is, Appeal No 37, is against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in granting summary judgment to the Respondent. [8] In a separate Action before the Shah Alam High Court (“Suit 343”), the Appellant had filed a suit against the Developer and the Respondent, seeking a declaration that the Sale and Purchase Agreement and the Deed of Mutual Covenants that the Appellant had signed with the Developer is null and void. [9] The Respondent successfully applied to the High Court for the action against it in Suit 343 to be struck out. [10] Suit 343 is ongoing, between the Appellant and the Developer. [11] In Suit 343, the Respondent had also filed a counterclaim. That counterclaim by the Respondent against the Appellant was for the payment of maintenance and sinking fund fees/costs owed by the Appellant. As the Respondent had succeeded to have the claim against it struck out in Suit 343, the Respondent was advised to withdraw the counterclaim and to file the counterclaim via a fresh and separate action. [12] As noted in paras [6] and [7] above, the Respondent commenced a fresh action in the Sessions Court against the Appellant on 21 December, 2022. Through a Notice of Application dated 11 April, 2023, the S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Respondent applied and succeeded in obtaining summary judgment at the Sessions Court. [13] The present Appeal No 37 by the Appellant is an appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in granting summary judgment to the Respondent. [14] Before the Sessions Court, the Appellant had also applied to the learned Sessions Court Judge to stay the proceedings, on the ground that there is Suit 343 before the High Court. It was the Appellant’s contention that the matter before the Sessions Court should be stayed until Suit 343 has been decided. The application for stay was made on 14 June, 2023. The learned Session Court Judge refused to grant the stay order. [15] Both the decisions in granting summary judgment and in refusing to grant an order for a stay was made on 24 July, 2023. [16] The present Appeal No 38 by the Appellant is an appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in refusing to grant a stay order. The Issues [17] The primary issue in Appeal No 37 is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in fact and in law in granting summary judgment to the Respondent. [18] Arising from this main issue are the following subsidiary issues, namely: S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 1. Whether a counterclaim is a defence or a set-off; and 2. Whether limitation has set in to bar part of the claim and thus rendering the granting of summary judgment as inappropriate. [19] As for Appeal No 38, the principal poser is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in refusing to grant the stay order as sought by the Appellant. Appeal No 38 [20] This Court shall first deal with Appeal No 38. [21] The Appellant’s case, in seeking a stay order, is premised on the argument that if she were successful in Suit 343, she will not be liable for the claim brought by the Respondent against her. [22] The Appellant relied on Teguh Majuria Sdn Bhd & Ors v Atsa Architects Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 492; [2022] MLJU 2384; [2022] MLRHU 2022 where the High Court had propounded “the efficient and fair resolution of the dispute as a whole” test. In addition, the Appellant also cited the case of Ong Koh Hou v Da Land Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] 5 AMR 269; [2019] 4 CLJ 622; [2018] MLJU 778; [2018] 5 MLRA 648. [23] In reply, the Respondent pointed out that even if the Appellant were to be successful, her rights are not affected nor is she prejudiced. According to the Respondent, the Appellant has a right to seek indemnity from the Developer. S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [24] The Respondent further alluded to the fact that the Appellant had only sought an order for a stay of proceedings after a lapse of 7 months. On this ground of delay, the Respondent relied on the case of Ajaib Singh v Jeffrey Fernandez [1971] 1 MLJ 139. [25] The Respondent cited Universal Trustee (M) Bhd v Lambang Pertama Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 5 AMR 57; [2014] 1 LNS 1437; [2015] & MLJ 305; [2014] MLRHU 458 and MCAT Gen Sdn Bhd v Celcom (M) Bhd [2007] 6 AMR 168; [2007] 10 CLJ 375; [2007] 8 MLJ 107; [2007] 1 MLRH 199 for the proposition that a party seeking an order for stay of proceedings will need to show the existence of special circumstances. [26] The Respondent also referred to Jadgis Singh a/l Banta Singh v Outlet Rank (M) Sdn Bhd [2013] 3 CLJ 47; [2013] 4 MLJ 213; [2013] 3 MLRA 104 which enumerated the principles governing the stay of proceedings and drew this Court’s attention to the “rare and compelling circumstances” prerequisite as explained by the Court of Appeal and High Court in Ptotasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee & Anor Appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299; [2018] 1 MLJU 993; [2018] 6 MLRA 674 and Kerajaan Malaysia v Golden Citrus Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 6 AMR498; [2022] 7 CLJ 631; [2022] MLJU 1464; [2022] MLRHU 1294 respectively. The Decision of this Court [27] On the delay point, the Appellant clarified that Suit 343 had originally been scheduled for trial from 6 – 9 June, 2023. However, she was informed on 6 June, 2023 that the trial had to be adjourned to 19, 25 and 26 April, 2024. If the trial of Suit 343 as originally scheduled for June, 2023 had taken place, the Appellant said that there would not have been a need S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 for her to apply for a stay of proceedings. Nevertheless, upon learning of the development that had taken place, she then filed the stay application. [28] This Court is satisfied that the delay ground as raised by the Respondent has been satisfactorily explained by the Appellant. [29] On the substantive issue as to whether the Appellant’s application for a stay of the proceedings ought to be granted, the result would depend on the factual matrix of the case. [30] The Respondent is at liberty to pursue its remedy against the Appellant. Likewise, the Appellant is entitled under the law to seek recourse against the Developer. There are a number of ways in which the Appellant could have exercised or enforced her rights against the Developer. One such avenue is by way of third-party proceedings. Even though the Appellant had chosen not to invoke Order 16 of the Rules of Court, 2012, her rights to seek the appropriate remedy against the Developer is not in any way affected by the outcome of the case brought against her by the Respondent. [31] In view of the reasoning, Appeal No 38 is dismissed with costs. [32] The Appellant is to pay the Respondent costs of RM10,000, subject to allocator. S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Appeal No 37 [33] In appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge in granting summary judgment to the Respondent, the Appellant has raised a number of grounds. [34] The crux of the arguments advanced by the Appellant is that there are triable issues warranting a trial. In other words, there exists issues or questions which ought to be tried within the meaning of Order 14 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012. Accordingly, the Appellant argued that summary judgment should not have been entered in favour or the Respondent. Two of the grounds raised by the Appellant to support her appeal to overturn the learned Sessions Court Judge’s decision to enter summary judgment in favour of the Respondent that warrant consideration in this appeal are addressed in the ensuing paragraphs. [35] The first relates to the counterclaim by the Appellant. The contention in the counterclaim here is that since the Respondent had failed to discharge their duties and obligations pursuant to section 5 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 and section 21 of the Strata Management Act 2013 in maintaining the property, the Appellant is entitled to claim damages against the Respondent. The allegations here relate to, inter alia, the maintenance of the glass bubble lift, leaking ceilings and a litany of other complaints relating to the maintenance of the property/premises. [36] This raises the question of whether the counterclaim amounts to a triable issue. S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [37] The Appellant also raised the point that part of the Respondent’s claim is time barred. The Appellant relied on section 6(1)(d) of the Limitation Act 1953 and argued that “any amount claimed for the period of time prior to 22 January, 2016 is time-barred and should not be allowed, and the amount should be deducted from the total claim” by the Respondent. The Appellant also cited the case of Golden Expansion Sdn Bhd v Dubon Bhd [2018] AMEJ 0687; [2018] 1 LNS 837; [2018] MLJU 797; [2018] MLRHU 678. [38] On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that its claim is not barred by the Limitation Act 1953. The Respondent relied on section 105(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013. The relevant section 105 provides as follows: Section 105 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to hear and determine any claims specified in Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule and where the total amount in respect of which an award of the Tribunal is sought does not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand ringgit or such other amount as may be prescribed to substitute the total amount. (2) For the avoidance of doubt, the Limitation Act 1953 [Act 254] shall not apply to the proceedings of the Tribunal. (3) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not extend to any claim in which the title to any land, or any estate or interest in land, or any franchise, is in question. S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [39] The Respondent acknowledged that section 105 is concerned with the jurisdiction of the Strata Management Tribunal established under Part IX of the said Act and matters that are heard and determined by the Tribunal, as opposed to the Court. However, as the Respondent is at liberty pursuant to section 34(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 to commence a dispute before the Tribunal or the Court, the Respondent reasoned that section 105 should equally apply to a matter before a Court. [40] Section 34 of the Strata Management Act 2013 governs the procedure on recovery if sums due and sub-section (2) reads as follows: If any sum remains unpaid by the purchaser or parcel owner at the end of the period specified in the notice under subsection (1), the developer or the joint management body, as the case may be, may file a summons or claim in a court of competent jurisdiction or in the Tribunal for the recovery of the said sum or as an alternative to recovery under this section, resort to recovery under section 35. [41] The Respondent drew further support from the following cases, namely, Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd v JMB Perdana Exclusive and Tropics [2017] 1 LNS 1035; [2017] MLJU 1020; [2017] MLRHU 685 (“Saujana Triangle”), Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon v Tam Cheng Meng [2018] 3 AMR 597; [2018] 8 CLJ 361; [2018] 8 MLJ 574; [2018] MLRHU 394 (“Tam Cheng Meng”), and Badan Pengurusan Megan Avenue I v Harcharan S Sidhu & Anor [2017] 4AMR 711; [2017] 9 CLJ 563; [2017] 11 MLJ 736]; [2017] 6 MLRH 64 (“Badan Pengurusan Megan Avenue I”). These cases have decided, by logical implication, that section 105(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 shall apply with equal S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 force when a developer of a joint management body opts to file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. [42] Last but not least, the Respondent also relied on the concept of “a running account”, as a cause of action known to the common law. In this regard, the Respondent cited the case of Bajaj Textiles Ltd v Gian Singh & Co Ltd [1968] 1 MLJ 279. [43] In response to the above authorities, the Appellant urged this Court to refer to the section 106 of the Strata Management Act 2013. That section states as follows: Section 106 Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Clause (1) Where a claim is filed with the Tribunal and the claim is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the issues in dispute in that claim, whether as shown in the initial claim or as emerging in the course of the hearing, shall not be the subject of proceedings between the same parties in any court unless— a) the proceedings before the court were commenced before the claim was filed with the Tribunal; or b) the claim before the Tribunal is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out. (2) Where paragraph (1)(a) applies, the issues in dispute in the claim to which those proceedings relate, whether as shown in the initial claim or emerging in the course of the hearing, shall not be the subject of proceedings between the same parties before the S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Tribunal unless the claim before the court is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out. (3) For the purpose of this section, a claim shall be deemed to have been made with the Tribunal when section 108 has been complied with. [44] On the basis of this section 106 of the Strata Management Act 2013, the Appellant argued that “when a claim that falls under the jurisdiction of the tribunal is brought to a court of law, such exclusivity no longer applies to the claimant”. [45] It is also significant that the Appellant had also referred to the decision of the Federal Court in Dubon Ltd (in liquidation) v Wisma Cosway Management Corp [2020] 5 AMR 33; [2020] 6 CLJ 589; [2020] 4 MLJ 288; [2020] 3 MLRA 555 (“Dubon”), which she submitted had reaffirmed the decision of the High Court in Golden Expansion Sdn Bhd v Dubon Bhd [2018] AMEJ 0687; [2018] 1 LNS 837; [2018] MLJU 797; [2018] MLRHU 678. The High Court had held that section 6(1)(d) of the Limitation Act 1953 applied in that case. The Decision of this Court [46] On the issue of the counterclaim, the learned Sessions Court Judge very ably dealt with this question at paragraphs [29] – [45] of his Ground of Judgment. [47] It is trite that a counterclaim does not give rise to a triable issue. Reference can be made to Permodalan Plantations Sdn Bhd v Rachuta S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 MLJ 157 and Ronald Quay Sdn Bhd v Maheswary Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 322. [48] The arguments advanced, together with the authorities cited, by both the Appellant and Respondent relating to the limitation ground demand serious deliberation. [49] It is vital that Dubon, being a decision of the apex court, is carefully examined and understood. [50] The sole question before the Federal Court in Dubon was “Whether the right of a Joint Management Body or a Management Corporation to collect and receive payment from a proprietor under sections 33 and 77 of the Strata Management Act 2013 respectively, gives it a lawful preference as a secured creditor over the assets of a company in liquidation?” The question of the application or exclusion of the Limitation Act 1953 was not considered by the Federal Court. Dubon is not authority to support the Appellant’s contention that since the claim in this case is before the court and not the Strata Management Tribunal, section 105(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 will not apply. [51] This Court is persuaded by the reasonings set out in Saujana Triangle, Tam Cheng Meng and Badan Pengurusan Megan Avenue I. [52] In view of the above findings, section 6(1)(d) of the Limitation Act 1953 does not apply to the present case and this limitation ground has no bearing on the summary judgment application. [53] The Decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge is affirmed. S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [54] However, the interest awarded should be amended to 5% per annum and compounded interest will also be adjusted accordingly. [55] Appeal No 38 is dismissed with costs. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent costs of RM10,000, subject to allocator. Dated: 16 January, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Manpal Singh Sacdev a/l Manjit Singh with Helmi bin Zaharin for the Appellant (Messrs. Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners) S. Sivanesan with Noreha binti Othman for the Respondent (Messrs. Nesan Cheng & Co.) S/N j19E5siCUkiTYAfFD9rB6Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

NA-83-420-03/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH ABDULLAH BIN KHALID

Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 506 - Kesalahan melakukan ugutan jenayah dengan mengancam hendak mendatangkan kecederaan dan kematian - Sama ada intipati pertuduhan berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada tertuduh mengugut mana-mana orang - Sama ada tertuduh melakukan ugutan dengan niat hendak menyebabkan kegentaran pada orang yang diugut - Seksyen 114 (g) Akta Keterangan - Kredibiliti Saksi Pendakwaan - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil Saksi bebas yang lain adalah fatal - lepas bebas diakhir kes pendakwaan - saksi tidak credible dan reliable - kecacatan siasatan

16/01/2024

Tuan Syed Farid Bin Syed Ali

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e96f0c03-38c5-4215-b7cc-f6a13a36289b&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET SEREMBAN DALAM NEGERI SEMBILAN [KES NO: NA-83-420-03/2021] PENDAKWA RAYA lwn. ABDULLAH BIN KHALID ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] Ini merupakan alasan penghakiman bagi kes No. 83-420-03/2021 yang melibatkan Orang Kena Tuduh bernama Abdullah Bin Khalid (selepas ini disebut sebagai OKT) yang telah dituduh di bawah seksyen 506 Kanun keseksaan bagi kesalahan melakukan ugutan. Untuk kemudahan rujukan, pertuduhan ke atas OKT adalah seperti berikut : “Bahawa kamu pada 21.3.2021 jam lebih kurang 12.05 tengahari, di tepi jalan berhampiran Batu 5, Kampung Mambau, Seremban di dalam Daerah Seremban, di dalam Negeri Sembilan, telah menakutkan secara jenayah dengan mengeluarkan kata-kata ugutan iaitu ‘aku bunuh kau’ terhadap Azmi Bin Mohd Fairuz, No. K/P: 970301116303. oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 506 Kanun Keseksaan’’ FAKTA DAN LATAR BELAKANG KES [2] Pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil 3 orang saksi iaitu SP1 - Encik Azmi Bin Mohd Fairuz (Pengadu), SP 2 - Kpl Mohd Haidil Bin Isahak (Anggota tangkapan) dan SP3 - Insp Muhammad Rais Bin Abdullah (Pegawai Penyiasat). 16/01/2024 12:23:37 NA-83-420-03/2021 Kand. 74 S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [3] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan SP1 ketika perbicaraan, SP1 dan OKT di dalam kes ini adalah jiran yang tinggal di taman perumahan yang sama. Pada 21.3.2021 jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengahari, sewaktu SP1 memandu kenderaannya hendak pulang ke rumah, kereta SP1 telah dihalang oleh kereta adik ipar OKT yang dikenali sebagai Mizan. Semasa SP1 meminta penama Mizan untuk mengalihkan kereta beliau, penama Mizan telah ketawakan SP1 dan enggan mengalihkan kereta beliau dari tempat tersebut. [4] Selepas itu telah berlaku satu pergelutan dan pergaduhan di antara SP1 dan Mizan namun pergelutan tersebut telah dileraikan oleh ahli keluarga Mizan. Selepas itu, SP1 menyatakan bahawa OKT telah secara tiba-tiba datang ke arah SP1 dari dalam rumah sambil membawa sebilah pedang. SP1 menyatakan ahli keluarga OKT yang berada ditempat kejadian pada masa itu melihat OKT mengejar SP1 mengunakan pedang tetapi tiada mana- mana ahli keluarga OKT yang menghalang OKT berbuat demikian. [5] SP1 telah dikejar oleh OKT dan SP 1 melarikan diri ke surau yang berdekatan dalam jarak 100 meter. Sewaktu OKT mengejar SP1, OKT telah mengeluarkan kata-kata ugutan ”aku bunuh kau, aku potong kau” kepada SP1. Setelah OKT berhenti mengejar SP1, SP1 telah kembali ke kenderaannya yang masih berada di tempat kejadian dan telah balik ke rumah. [6] Setelah sampai di rumah, SP1 kemudianya telah menghubungi abang SP1 bernama Hanafi dan kedua-dua mereka telah pergi semula ke rumah OKT untuk bertanyakan tentang kejadian yang telah berlaku. SP1 menyatakan bahawa OKT dan keluarganya tidak bercakap apa-apa pada ketika itu. SP1 seterusnya telah membuat satu laporan polis pada 21.3.2021 tentang kejadian tersebut dan menyatakan laporan polis tersebut telah pun ditarik semula setelah dinasihatkan oleh SP3 yang merupakan Pegawai Penyiasat kes. SP1 kemudianya membuat laporan polis kedua pada 24.3.2021 iaitu (P1) setelah menerima gangguan dan ugutan daripada rakan-rakan OKT selepas laporan polis pertama ditarik balik. [7] Tangkapan telah dibuat keatas OKT oleh SP2 pada 24.3.2021, dan sebilah Parang telah dirampas oleh SP2 iaitu gambar parang yang telah dikemukakan ke Mahkamah dan ditandakan sebagai P3. ANALISA DAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH [8] Di penghujung kes pendakwaan, pihak pendakwaan dipertanggungjawabkan untuk membuktikan setiap elemen pertuduhan pada tahap prima facie. Hal yang sedemikian telah S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 jelas diperuntukkan di bawah Seksyen 173 (h) (i) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. Namun dalam kes ini Mahkamah telah membuat keputusan bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan kes pada tahap prima facie dan Mahkamah memerintahkan OKT supaya dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan tanpa dipanggil membela diri. [9] Pertamanya Mahkamah merujuk kepada definisi “prima facie” yang ditafsirkan sebagai keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Pihak Pendakwaan setelah penilaian maksima (“maximum evaluation”) dibuat oleh Mahkamah. Penilaian maksima ini mestilah cukup untuk menyabitkan tertuduh dengan kesalahan sepertimana pertuduhan walaupun tertuduh memilih untuk berdiam diri apabila dipanggil untuk membela diri kelak. [10] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes utama yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan iaitu kes Balachandran a/l Selvaratnam v PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 di mana Yang Arif Augustine Paul di dalam penghakimannya memutuskan seperti berikut :- “......in order to make a finding either way the court must, at the close of the case for the prosecution, undertake a positive evaluation of the credibility and reliability of all the evidence adduced so as to determine whether the elements of the offence have been established....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.” [11] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes PP v Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457, dimana Yang Arif Gopal Sri Ram, menyatakan seperti berikut :- “[15] For the guidance of the court below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by the trial court at the close of the prosecution’s case: (i) the close of the prosecution’s case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinize the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused; (ii) Ask yourself the question: If I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 “Yes”, then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is “No” then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted…” [12] Berdasarkan kepada kedua-dua prinsip undang-undang dalam kes ini, adalah jelas bahawa Mahkamah pada peringkat ini perlu membuat satu “Maximum evaluation” terhadap keterangan saksi-saksi dan juga keterangan-keterangan dokumen yang dikemukakan dengan menentukan kredibiliti dan reliability keterangan-keterangan tersebut sebelum satu kes prima facie dikatakan telah berjaya dibuktikan oleh Pihak Pendakwaan. [13] Dalam kes ini, perkara yang paling penting yang diteliti oleh Mahkamah adalah Pihak Pendakwaan telah memilih untuk memanggil SP1 iaitu Pengadu seorang sahaja individu yang berada di tempat kejadian untuk hadir sebagai saksi pendakwaan bagi memberikan keterangan berkaitan keseluruhan kejadian, kesemua saksi-saksi awam lain yang turut berada ditempat kejadian selain OKT dan SP1 seperti Bapa mertua OKT, Isteri OKT, Adik Ipar OKT bernama Mizan serta Abang OKT bernama Hanafi yang hadir kemudian tidak dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan dan hanya beberapa orang saksi ditawarkan kepada Pihak Pembelaan selepas kes pendakwaan ditutup. [14] Oleh itu, dalam keadaan ini Mahkamah percaya bahawa Mahkamah perlu memastikan kredibiliti SP1 yang merupakan saksi utama dalam kes ini tidak terjejas sebelum Mahkamah memutuskan untuk menerima sepenuhnya segala keterangan SP1 tanpa sebarang keterangan sokongan (corroboration evidence) daripada saksi-saksi lain yang turut berada ditempat kejadian. [15] Setelah menilai keterangan SP1 secara keseluruhannya, Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa kredibiliti SP1 yang merupakan saksi penting Pihak Pendakwaan telah terjejas pada peringkat ini kerana terdapat beberapa kelompangan dan percanggahan yang material daripada keterangan SP1 dalam kes ini yang mana akan dikupas dengan lebih khusus dalam alasan penghakiman ini. [16] Pertama, dapatan fakta yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah adalah SP1 dan keluarga OKT adalah merupakan jiran yang tinggal bersebelahan rumah tetapi kedua-dua mereka mempunyai hubungan yang tidak baik sebelum kejadian ini berlaku lagi. Namun perkara ini, Mahkamah dapati cuba disembunyikan oleh SP1 apabila SP1 menyatakan seperti berikut ketika pemeriksaan utama oleh Pihak Pendakwaan :- S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 S : boleh cik beritahu mahkamah bagaimana hubungan cik dengan jiran sebelum kejadian? SP 1 : sebelum kejadian hubungan saya dengan jiran amat baik. S : lepas kejadian? SP1 : lepas kejadian hubungan saya dengan jiran tidak baik. [17] Jika merujuk kepada keterangan SP1 ini adalah jelas menyatakan hubungan diantara mereka adalah sangat baik sebelum kejadian ugutan ini yang dikatakan berlaku pada 21.3.2021, tetapi ketika pemeriksaan balas oleh Peguambela OKT, SP1 telah memberikan satu keterangan yang bercanggah seperti berikut :- S : Selepas kejadian anda telah pergi jumpa abang anda? SP1 : saya call dulu abang saya tanya dia kat mana sebab benda ini telah berlaku banyak kali, 3 kali dia gunakan barang, last sekali ini dia mengunakan pedang. [18] Maka berdasarkan kepada jawapan SP1 dalam pemeriksaan balas ini, SP1 telah nyatakan bahawa kejadian ugutan sebelum ini telah berlaku sebanyak 3 kali dimana dikatakan OKT telah menggunakan barang dan kali ini OKT membuat ugutan mengunakan pedang. Oleh itu perkara ini adalah jelas menunjukan SP1 membuat kenyataan bercanggah dimana Mahkamah membuat dapatan fakta jika terdapat kejadian ugutan yang dikatakan oleh SP1 telah dilakukakan oleh OKT sebelum kejadian ini sebanyak 3 kali, maka sudah tentu hubungan diantara mereka sememangnya tidak baik sebelum kejadian 21.3.2021 lagi. [19] Oleh itu, memandangkan SP1 dan OKT serta keluarga OKT berada dalam hubungan yang tidak baik sejak sebelum kejadian ini berlaku lagi, kredibiliti SP1 boleh dipertikaikan kerana SP1 mempunyai kepentingan peribadi dan percanggahan keterangan SP1 ini menunjukan SP1 cuba menyembunyikan fakta yang sebenar berkenaan dengan hubungan SP1 dan OKT sebelum kejadian ini. [20] Kedua, kredibiliti SP1 juga terjejas apabila terdapat kelompangan dalam keterangan SP1 berkaitan laporan polis (P1) yang hanya dibuat 3 hari selepas kejadian iaitu pada S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 24.3.2021. Perlu ditekankan disini bahawa kejadian yang dinyatakan oleh SP1 telah berlaku pada 21.3.2021 dan SP1 telah nyatakan dalam keteranganya di Mahkamah bahawa terdapat satu laporan polis pertama telah dibuat terhadap OKT pada 21.3.2021 tetapi laporan polis ini telah ditarik balik atas nasihat daripada pengawai penyiasat iaitu SP3. [21] SP1 kemudianya menyatakan bahawa laporan polis kedua iaitu (P1) dibuat semula terhadap OKT kerana SP1 telah diganggu dan diugut oleh kawan-kawan OKT selepas kejadian. SP1 juga menyatakan laporan (P1) tersebut dibuat kerana tidak berpuas hati terhadap kawan-kawan OKT yang telah menggangu SP1. [22] Perkara ini jelas menunjukan bahawa SP1 membuat laporan polis kedua ini bukan lagi kerana SP1 takut atau gentar terhadap ugutan bunuh yang kononya dibuat oleh OKT tetapi laporan polis kedua ini dibuat atas dasar tidak berpuas hati dan ingin membalas dendam terhadap OKT. Perkara ini bukan sahaja menjejaskan kredibiliti SP1 malah turut menjejaskan elemen pertuduhan berkaitan perasaan takut atau gentar daripada ugutan yang katanya dibuat oleh OKT pada 21.3.2021 sepertimana yang dituntut dibawah seksyen 506 Kanun Keseksaan. [23] Malah timbul satu persoalan dan kelompangan dalam keterangan SP1 berkaitan perkara ini, iaitu persoalan kenapa laporan polis kedua dibuat terhadap OKT sedangkan rakan-rakan OKT yang dikatakan telah menganggu dan mengugut SP1 selepas laporan polis pertama ditarik balik? Disini Mahkamah terpaksa membuat inferens yang memihak kepada OKT, dimana SP1 membuat laporan polis kedua ini (P1) hanya kerana tidak berpuas hati dan ingin membalas dendam terhadap OKT apabila SP1 diganggu oleh rakan-rakan OKT. [24] Dalam hal ini juga, Mahkamah mengambil perhatian bahawa Laporan Polis Pertama bertarikh 21.3.2021 yang dikatakan telah dibuat oleh SP1 terhadap OKT juga tidak pernah dikemukakan atau ditunjukan kepada Mahkamah oleh Pihak Pendakwaan. Kegagalan Pihak Pendakwaan mengemukakan Laporan Polis bertarikh 21.3.2021 ini adalah satu perkara yang fatal kepada kes pendakwaan kerana SP1 telah menyatakan beberapa kali dalam keteranganya bahawa laporan polis pertama ini dibuat selepas kejadian berlaku dan laporan polis ini ada menyatakan tentang keseluruhan kejadian yang telah berlaku. Walaupun laporan polis ini telah ditarik balik, Mahkamah percaya laporan polis ini adalah satu dokumen yang material untuk mengesahkan dan menyokong keterangan SP1 tersebut jika Laporan Polis ini benar-benar wujud. S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [25] Kegagalan untuk laporan polis pertama ini dikemukakan juga menyebabkan Mahkamah perlu membuat satu andaian seperti yang diperuntukan dibawah seksyen 114(g) Akta keterangan 1950 yang mana Mahkamah membuat andaian bahwa jika laporan polis bertarikh 21.3.2021 ini dikemukakan terdapat keterangan yang akan menjejaskan kes Pendakwaan dan tindakaan Pihak Pendakwaan dengan sengaja tidak mengemukakan Laporan Polis tersebut adalah bertujuan menyembunyikan keterangan yang penting bagi kes ini sedangkan SP1 dan SP3 dalam keterangan mereka telah berkali-kali menyebut tentang kewujudan laporan polis pertama tersebut. [26] Oleh kerana kredibiliti SP1 dalam kes ini telah terjejas dengan teruk atas isu-isu yang telah dinyatakan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa keterangan SP1 seorang sahaja berkaitan kejadian adalah tidak memadai dan pada peringkat ini terdapat keperluan keterangan sokongan yang lain untuk menyokong keterangan SP1 bagi menyakinkan Mahkamah kepada naratif kes Pihak Pendakwaan.. [27] Maka kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi-saksi lain yang berada di tempat kejadian juga adalah satu kegagalan yang fatal kepada kes Pendakwaan kerana saksi-saksi awam yang berada di tempat kejadian adalah saksi-saksi yang penting untuk menyokong keterangan SP1 dan keterangan mereka adalah amat penting untuk Mahkamah mendapatkan satu gambaran yang jelas tentang keseluruhan kejadian yang dikatakan berlaku pada 21.3.2024 oleh SP1. [28] Kegagalan untuk memanggil saksi-saksi penting ini juga menyebabkan Mahkamah turut mengguna pakai seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan sekali lagi dimana Mahkamah percaya jika saksi-saksi tersebut dipanggil pada peringkat ini, sudah pasti terdapat keterangan yang akan menjejaskan kes Pendakwaan dan terdapatnya keterangan yang akan memihak kepada OKT dan atas sebab itu Pihak Pendakwaan sengaja tidak memanggil saksi-saksi lain yang berada ditempat kejadian pada peringkat ini dengan tunjuan untuk menyembunyikan fakta kes yang sebenar. [29] Walaupun pihak Pendakwaan menghujahkan tiada cubaan untuk menyembunyikan fakta kerana saksi-saksi tersebut telah ditawarkan kepada pihak pembelaan dan pihak pembelaan juga telah menyatakan untuk memanggil 2 orang saksi yang ditawarkan jika pembelaan dipanggil membela diri. Mahkamah percaya Pihak Pendakwaan perlu sedar, beban pembuktian di tahap prima facie pada peringkat ini adalah terletak dibahu Pihak Pendakwaan dan kegagalan untuk saksi-saksi tersebut dipanggil memberikan keterangan S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 pada peringkat ini adalah fatal dan menjejaskan kes pendakwaan kerana kredibiliti SP1 seperti mana yang telah dinyatakan telah terjejas. [30] Mahkamah sedar dibawah seksyen 134 Akta Keterangan 1950 menyatakan bahawa “No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact” tetapi Mahkamah percaya Pihak Pendakwaan masih perlu memastikan saksi-saksi penting yang berkredibiliti dipanggil untuk meyakinkan Mahkamah pada peringkat ini untuk menunjukan satu kes prima facie telah dibuktikan. Malangnya dalam kes dihadapan Mahkmah ini, kredibiliti SP1 yang merupakan saksi utama Pendakwaan telah terjejas dan terdapatnya keperluan keterangan sokongan daripada saksi lain ditempat kejadian untuk menyakinkan Mahkamah dengan naratif yang dibawa oleh Pihak Pendakwaan. [31] Mahkamah membezakan keadaan kes ini dengan prinsip kes yang dirujuk oleh Pihak Pendakwaan dalam hujahan balasnya iaitu dalam kes Md Zainudin v PP [2013] 3 MLJ 773 seperti berikut :- It is the finding of the learned trial judge that the contradictions in the evidence of PW5 were either immaterial or minor and had accepted PW5's evidence. The evidence of PW5 was held to be credible enough and sufficient to prove the ingredients of the charges preferred against the appellant. His Lordship ruled that the case did not fall within the category of cases where the testimony of the single witness itself required that corroboration should be insisted upon as a rule of prudence, (see Balachandran v Public Prosecutor [2005] 1 CLJ 85). It is trite that the testimony of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to establish any fact (see Khaw Cheng Bok & Ors v Khaw Cheng Poon & Ors [1998] 3 MLJ 457). Witnesses are weighed, not counted (testes ponderantur non numerantor). The right to call or not to call a particular witness lies solely with the prosecution. But where the prosecution's evidence falls short of proving a prima facie case at the end of its case, the right not to call such witness/witnesses and to make him available to the defence will be of no avail. The present appeal is not such a case. In our view, the non calling of these two witnesses does not create a gap in the prosecution's case. Their evidence is not material for the unfolding of the narratives of the prosecution's case. The prosecution was content with the evidence of PW5 to prove their case against the appellant, without calling Chief Inspector Ramesh and Sarjan Mejar Ahmad Rosli to testify. That is their prerogative. The learned trial judge found (in our view rightly) that PW5's S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 evidence together with the evidence of other witnesses called by the prosecution was sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the appellant. [55] PW5 was a police witness. The learned trial judge found him to be a credible witness. It is true that the prosecution's case rested solely on the evidence on PW5. However, under the law there is no requirement for his evidence to be corroborated. The learned trial judge believed PW5 and as such his evidence was sufficient to establish the case for the prosecution. Any requirement for PW5's evidence to be corroborated will conflict with s 134 of the Evidence Act 1950 which provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact (see Balachandran v Public Prosecutor [2005] 2 MLJ 301; [2005] 1 CLJ 85). Jika merujuk kepada fakta dan dapatan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah dalam kes ini, saksi PW5 yang dipanggil adalah merupakan seorang anggota polis dan dalam kes tersebut Mahkamah telah membuat satu dapatan bahawa PW5 tersebut adalah saksi yang credible. [32] Berbeza di dalam kes dihadapan Mahkamah ini dimana dapatan telah dibuat oleh Mahkamah pada peringkat ini bahawa SP1 adalah saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai (not credible) dan mempunyai kepentingan yang tersendiri. Tambahan pula, saksi-saksi yang tidak dipanggil dalam kes ini pula bukanlah anggota polis serbuan sepertimana dalam kes tersebut tetapi kesemua saksi yang tidak dipanggil adalah merupakan saksi-saksi awam yang mana terdapat kemungkinan fakta dan penceritaan daripada saksi-saksi tersebut adalah berbeza daripada apa yang diceritakan oleh SP1 dan keterangan mereka adalah penting pada peringkat ini. [33] Selain itu Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa SP3 iaitu pengawai penyiasat telah membuat satu siasatan yang cacat dan tidak adil di dalam kes ini. Berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang telah dikemukakan di Mahkamah, tindakan SP3 yang telah menasihatkan SP1 untuk menarik balik kes adalah jelas menunjukan bahawa tiada siasatan lengkap yang dilakukan selepas laporan polis pertama dibuat oleh SP1 pada 21.3.2021. Malah SP3 mengunakan budi bicaranya sendiri tanpa berpandukan mana-mana peruntukan undang- undang telah menyuruh SP1 menarik semula laporan polis pertama tersebut. SP3 yang tidak mempunyai sebarang kuasa dibawah mana-mana undang-undang tidak sepatutnya melakukan perkara tersebut kerana tugas utama SP3 adalah untuk membuat satu siasatan S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 yang adil dan objektif kemudian segala keputusan atau arahan sama ada kes diteruskan dengan pendakwaan atau arahan lain adalah dibawah bidang kuasa serta budi bicara Timbalan Pendakwa Raya. Atas faktor ini, kredibiliti SP3 juga telah terjejas dan hasil siasatan SP3 juga tidak boleh dipercayai (not reliable). [34] Kecacatan siasatan SP3 ini juga jelas dilihat daripada gambar barang kes yang dikemukakan ke Mahkamah iaitu P3 dimana P3 bukanlah senjata yang digunakan oleh OKT ketika kejadian. SP1 tidak mengecamkan gambar tersebut di Mahkamah dan menyatakan itu bukanlah senjata yang digunakan ketika kejadian. Perkara ini jelas menunjukan terdapatnya kecacatan dalam penyiasatan telah berlaku dimana jika siasatan dibuat secara teratur dan teliti, SP3 sudah pasti telah mebuat pengecaman barang kes ini dengan SP1 sebelum kertas siasatan dirujuk kepada Pihak Timbalan Pendakwa Raya dan kes ini didakwa di Mahkamah. [35] Tambahan pula dalam keterangan SP1, SP3 telah menasihatkan SP1 untuk menarik kes dan berjanji akan mengambil tindakan terhadap OKT jika ada apa-apa berlaku di kemudian hari. Perkara ini dinyatakan oleh SP1 ketika pemeriksaan semula oleh DPP seperti berikut : S : Sila jelaskan kepada Mahkamah sama ada kamu memang telah membuat laporan polis pada 21.3.2021 atau tidak? SP1 : Pada 21/3/2023 saya memang betul buat report terhadap OKT. pada 21/3 tu io minta saya berbicang baik-baik kemudian minta saya tarik kes dan beri jaminan sekiranya ada ugutan yang saya terima selepas itu, beliau akan ambil tindakan. [36] Perkara ini sekali lagi telah menjejaskan kredibiliti SP3 sebagai pengawai penyiasat yang mana beliau tidak boleh memberikan sebarang janji kepada SP1 untuk tindakan diambil terhadap OKT kerana tugas beliau sepatutnya menyiasat sama ada kejadian tersebut benar- benar berlaku. Malah Mahkamah percaya siasatan menjadi cacat kerana siasatan tidak dimulakan sejurus selepas laporan polis pertama dibuat pada 21.3.2021 tetapi siasatan hanya dibuat pada 24.3.2021 iaitu 3 hari selepas kejadian berlaku. [37] Oleh itu, beradasarkan kepada dapatan fakta dan isu-isu yang telah dinyatakan, Mahkamah mendapati pada peringkat ini Mahkamah tidak bersedia untuk menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap OKT jika OKT memilih untuk berdiam diri apabila dipanggil membela diri S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 kelak kerana keterangan yang diberikan di Mahkamah adalah daripada saksi-saksi yang tidak credible dan tidak reliable sehingga menyebabkan keterangan tersebut tidak mampu untuk membuktikan dan menyokong elemen pertuduhan pada tahap prima facie. [38] Maka Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan kes di peringkat prima facie dan dengan itu OKT diperintahkan untuk dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. BERTARIKH : 16 JANUARI 2024 SYED FARID BIN SYED ALI MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (2) SEREMBAN NEGERI SEMBILAN S/N Awxv6cU4FUK3zPahOjYomw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DJ-83-298-11/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH AHMAD BASIR BIN ABU BAKAR

CRIMINAL LAW-Principle of Sentensing-Consideration-Custom Act 1967- Section 135 of the same act- Mitigating Factors-Aggravating Factors-Bond of Good Behavior-Conviction Recorded-Public Interest-Plea of Guilt-First Offender-Wellbeing of the Accused

15/01/2024

Tuan Mohd Izdham Naim bin Che Ani

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=21f3c85a-4274-438f-b278-634b4b86a2be&Inline=true

DJ-83-298-11/2021 Page 1 of 7 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI PASIR MAS DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA KES JENAYAH NO: DJ-83-298-11/2021 PENDAKWARAYA -LAWAN- AHMAD BASIR BIN ABU BAKAR GROUND OF JUDGMENT 1. These are my grounds for my decision. The charge meted against the Accused is as follows:- Bahawa kamu pada 17/05/2021 jam lebih kurang 8.00 malam, bertempat di tepi jalan hadapan Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia (LKIM) Kampung Kedap Rantau Panjang di dalam Jajahan Pasir Mas di dalam Negeri Kelantan telah didapati memiliki barangan larangan import (rokok) iaitu BIL JENIS/ JENAMA JUMLAH KARTON X KOTAK X BATANG JUMLAH BATANG 1 SAAT 100 KARTON X 10 KOTAK X 20 BATANG 20000 JUMLAH 20000 Yang mana barangan tersebut ditaksirkan bernilai RM 2200.00 yang mana barangan tersebut adalah dilarang pengimportannya kecuali dengan cara sepertimana diperuntukkan di bawah butiran 1, Bahagian II Jadual Ketiga Perintah Kastam (Larangan Mengenai Import) 2017. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 135(1)(d) Akta Kastam 1967 yang boleh dihukum di bawa seksyen 13591)(v)(aa) Akta yang sama Hukuman:- Hukuman denda minimum tidak kurang dari 10 kali ganda nilai barang atau RM 100,000 yang mana lebih tinggi sehingga maksimum tidak lebih dari 20 kali ganda nilai barangan atau rm 500,000 yang mana lebih tinggi, atau penjara tidak kurang dari 6 bulan dan tidak lebih 5 tahun atau kedua-duanya. 15/01/2024 12:09:17 DJ-83-298-11/2021 Kand. 51 S/N WsjzIXRCj0OyeGNLS4aivg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DJ-83-298-11/2021 Page 2 of 7 2. The Court is satisfied upon charge meted against him. Upon reading the charge which the Court also made him understand the nature of the charge, the Accused pleaded guilty and it were unreserved and unequivocal. The consequences of the plea also been meted out to him and still he pleaded guilty. Having satisfied with this matter, this Court found the Accused guilty and convicted him on the preferred charge. The court sentence that the Accused be released with bond of good behavior under section 294 Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, this appeal. 3. This Court refer to Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Morah Chekwube Chukwudi [2017] MLJU 958, where it laid down the jurisprudence in relation of sentencing:- Jurisprudence relating to sentence [5] It is well established that there are a number of factors that courts take into consideration before sentencing. Some of them are as follows: (a) the gravity or severity of the facts constituting the offence; (b) the circumstances in which it was committed; (c) the rampancy of such offence in the area; (d) the offender’s previous record; (e) the offender’s contribution and support to his family members; (f) the offenders means; (g) the effect of conviction and sentence on his job opportunities; (h) the age and health of the accused; (i) whether it is his first offence; (j) whether the accused had cooperated with the police after the commission of the offence; (k) whether the accused had pleaded guilty; (i) status of the accused; (m) whether there was violence during the crime; (n) public interest, etc. S/N WsjzIXRCj0OyeGNLS4aivg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DJ-83-298-11/2021 Page 3 of 7 4. For our case at hand, I draw attention to Section 294 of the CPC which, in regards to first offenders provides: Section 294 First offenders (1) When any person not being a youthful offender has been convicted of any offence punishable with imprisonment before any Court if it appears to the Court that regard being had to the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the offender or to the trivial nature of the offence or to any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed it is expedient that the offender be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties and during such period as the Court may direct to appear and receive judgment if and when called upon and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that the offender shall pay the costs of the prosecution or some portion of the same within that period and by such instalment as may be directed by the Court. Section 432 shall be applicable to any direction made under this subsection. (3) If a Court having power to deal with the offender in respect of his original offence, or any Court of summary jurisdiction, is satisfied by information on oath that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his bond, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension. (4) Any offender when apprehended on any such warrant shall, if not immediately brought before the Court having power to sentence him, be brought before a Magistrate, and the Magistrate may either remand him by warrant until the time at which he is required by his bond to appear for judgment or until the sitting of a Court having power to deal with his original offence, or may admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for judgment. (5) The offender, when so remanded, may be committed to prison and the warrant of remand shall order that he be brought before the Court before which he was bound to appear for judgment or to answer as to his conduct since his release. (6) This section shall not apply — (a) if the offender is charged with a serious offence; or (b) if the offender is charged with the commission of an act of domestic violence as defined under section 2 of the Domestic Violence Act 1994. 5. In the case of Jayanathan v Public Prosecutor [1973] 2 MLJ 68; [1973] 1 LNS 56, the Federal Court concisely explained the effect of s S/N WsjzIXRCj0OyeGNLS4aivg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DJ-83-298-11/2021 Page 4 of 7 294 of the CPC where Ong Hock Sim FJ delivering the judgement ruled: This section vests the court before which a person is convicted with power to suspend sentence for such period as the court may direct, and, if the offender behaves himself during such period, he would escape punishment for his offence. If he fails to observe the conditions of his bond, he would be liable to be apprehended and dealt with for his original offence. As Thomson J (as he then was) said in Public Prosecutor v Idris [1955] 1 LNS 93: Section 294 which only applies in the case of adult offenders can only be made use of where a person has been convicted and where his conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment without the option of a fine. I do not wish to lay down any hard and fast rule, which in any event would be difficult to prove, but magistrates would be well-advised only to make use of s 294 where an offence which is generally of a serious nature and which is punishable with imprisonment has been committed. By an adult offender and where it is considered desirable to place him on probation In our view, if the Legislature intended that s 294 is to cease to have application in respect of an offence under s 15 of the Prevention of Crime Ordinance, it should be so expressed in the clearest possible language. We can find no such provision. 6. Section 294 of the CPC would only be applicable to penal provisions which carry a term of imprisonment of less than ten years. In this case, there was no illegality when the court applied s 294 of the CPC for the offence of desertion pursuant to s 135 Custom Act 1967 as the offence carried an imprisonment of a not more than 10 years. The discretion to apply s 294 of the CPC was well within the powers and ambit of the magistrate after considering the severity of the charge, facts and reflecting upon the mitigating and aggravating factors S/N WsjzIXRCj0OyeGNLS4aivg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DJ-83-298-11/2021 Page 5 of 7 7. In our case today, the offence committed by the Accused was one which did not involve malice or brutality. The courts in determining the sentence to be imposed, was at liberty to take this as a factor to be considered. However, apart from this case, crimes which were overtly violent and heinous should never be given a light sentence as the correct purpose of sentencing would be aimed at deterrence and retribution. A person who commits an offence as such must be shown abhorrence by the justice system. 8. The respondent in this case was a first offender and he had no prior convictions. It had been a long judicial principle to award leniency to first offenders. The court was of the view that, upon consideration of the mitigating and aggravating factors and deliberating upon the facts of the case, a bond of good behavior pursuant to s 294 of the CPC served the principles and purposes of sentencing and was in line with established judicial principles. 9. Under principle of sentencing, it is considered after considering on other facts such as time, place, the nature of the case and rampancy of such crime. This Court also noted that in passing a sentencing a light sentence can be rejected in light of public interest. 10. The Accused age 30 during the proceeding, married and blessed with children. He was the sole breadwinner of the family and properly educated. The learned counsel for the accused then pleaded that this is the Accused first offense which he is deeply regretted. Thus, as first offender very much consideration may be given. Apart from that, the S/N WsjzIXRCj0OyeGNLS4aivg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DJ-83-298-11/2021 Page 6 of 7 accused monthly income is currently at around RM 1000-1500 thus if minimum fine be given in this case, the Accused will then be ended up in prison. 11. The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor on the other hand, avers that commensurate sentence should be given as this case proceeded with trial and taken together with gravity of the offense. This Court have taken consideration on these factors, I opt that bond of good behavior is most appropriate for this case, due to the showing of remorse on the accused, gravity of the offence, taken together with his social wellbeing and those depended on him. 12. As for rehabilitation, which is often seen solely as a way to aid an accused in becoming an efficacious member of society but it is also aimed benefiting society. By rehabilitating offenders, it is hoped that the accused will be equipped with the right mind set and skills to live a life by making choices that are well reasoned and grounded. 13. Having due regards on the facts and circumstances herein above, this Court find that the Accused guilty and convicted him on the preferred charge. However, having considered the above factors, I ordered him under bond of good behavior under section 294 Criminal Procedure Code for 2 years with 1 surety. S/N WsjzIXRCj0OyeGNLS4aivg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DJ-83-298-11/2021 Page 7 of 7 14. This sentence is appropriate, proper and just. Thus it should be maintained. This Court so orders. DATED 14 JANUARY 2024 …………………………………………... MOHD IZDHAM NAIM BIN CHE ANI Magistrate Magistrate’s Court Pasir Mas Kelantan Darul Naim Parties:- Deputy Public Prosecutor, Kelantan Darul Naim: Puan Mahfuzah Hamizah binti Mohd Ariff The Accused: En. Zul Azhan Decision: 21 November 2023 CRIMINAL LAW- Principle of Sentencing-Consideration-Custom Act 1967- Section 135 of the same act- Mitigating Factors-Aggravating Factors-Bond of Good Behavior-Conviction Recorded- Public Interest-Plea of Guilt-First Offender-Wellbeing of the Accused S/N WsjzIXRCj0OyeGNLS4aivg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-25-271-07/2021

PEMOHON MMSB CONSULT SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) CHAIRIL BAHARI BIN IBRAHIM

Judicial Review - The Applicant filed applications for an order of Certiorari to quash the decisions of the Industrial Court dated 22.4.2021 pursuant to a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the 2nd Respondents whereby the Industrial Court had found the 2nd Respondents had been dismissed without just cause or excuse - Whether there was genuine redundancy.

15/01/2024

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d28966a7-3268-4fd8-9851-8d18b83612d9&Inline=true

15/01/2024 15:52:27 WA-25-271-07/2021 Kand. 33 S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25—271—o7/2021 Kand. 33 15/01/2n2L 15 -27 mwn rmmmm TINGGI MALAVA nu mun LDIIPUR mum wnuvm Psnssxurum xum umpun. muvsu Aammum KuAsA.xuAsA mus» wzmonmum uunug gamuom K‘ENA>GMfl go wA‘z5-255477/2021 Dnlsm pevkarz Award Mnhkamah Perusahaan No ass raw. 2921 bonankh 2242021 can dflenma olen Pemomn pad: zuzuzw dalam Kai Mahkanuh Perusanaanua A/4—us3/I9‘ Dan Dalam pemara mm uavmnmrun umuk Penman Csmoran‘ Dan Dawn pmm Seksyan zu ma Pemubcmgan Puusahaan 1957. Dan Dalam ualkala mengenav Janus! 1 Am Mihkamah Kahildmnn mu. Dan Dz\am perkara Amvan 53 xaeaanxaeaan Muhkamah 2012 ANYARA mass co-uunsnn am Pmvwhon am 1 M-mm-n mum. nn Mallyslx 2 Viv cum. wan Raspondenrfissponaen Heard logelharwnh / Dwdengar hersnml Due : .« 15 sm pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsza «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! mum runxnmm mom MALAVA on nun; LLIMPUR mum wuunu pznszxuvum xugu umvuw. uuuwsu rsarucuu KUASA-KLIASA xrusr PERMOHOMAN unrux ssmxnu KEI1AKlM5y ug WA~25~lEI—(I7/1021 Dnlam perkam Award Mankamah Puusahean No as: Yahun 2021 xmunn. 2242021 can mlenma oxen Pemahcn mu. 294202: dahm Kas Mnhkamnh Pelusahaan No A/44484/19 Dan uawam penars susm pemmmnin umuk Penman Cemoran‘ Dan Dalam Devkzm Seksyen 2a ma Pemummgnn Puruuhaan I961‘ Dan Dawn nencava mennenax Jaduzl v. Akla Mahkamah Kahakrmnn 1994. Dun Dalam perkala Alumn 53 Kaeaamcaeaan Mankzmnh 2m: ANTARA Muss Conlull San am: Pemomn om 1 u-mum.» Ptmsahnn Mmym 2. Ln Khurn vmg Resvnnden-Resmnden mm Iogalmr Mm / Dwdengav naruma mu Mxs sm pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsza «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 9 However‘ the law has now developed to allow a dacrslon lo be challenged on gvourlds O9 Illegallly and lrratlonalllyl which then permus ma Coulis Io scru|inIzs me daclsrorl no| only lurlhe process but also for substance 10 ll rs sellled law lrlal lhe mgr: courl mu rml rrrlerlara wllh a denislon af me lnduslrial cuurl unless ll can be eslaulrsned lrral lrre declsion ls lnlecled wlm errors ol law. 11 The mearung afermv or law has also been explalned bylhe oourl ol Appeal m we case or syarlkal Kondman ulelayu Kelaman and v. 1 nlpnfl wcnlm Unlon mus) l MLRA zec; mes] 2 cu 743; [1995] 2 MR 1601; [1995] 2 MLJ 311 ln lhe lollowrrrg words. “It ls nellherlus nor dull hle In name: In Ixhnulhvl dufinluun 0! mm Imnunll no In trier M I... rm me calagurles on such an error are no! uased. But [I may In 3 u am In urrnv av law would bd diwloud il ma declslon-ullklr uks hlmsell me umng qnnsliun urum lnlo account mlmm cnnlldlrluons nr orun. Ia uh nlo Ixnurll ulovnnk clmslflevallons [whal may be wnvemenlly lermed an Anlsmmn: errerldr ifhl mllcnrllllull In mm of y um ul-mu. ar ruluppll. or mlssulu a pvlncvnle ulme an ml l.Iw ~ lemphasls added) 12 surularly, ln me case ofAlrsp:-:1 Manug-mom sarvlcu Sdn Bhd v. Col (3) Human: Sinuh cluugur slngll man] 1 MLRA cu; [zoos] 4 CL! 17, me Conn 01 Appeal held lhal an erroneous lrllerenee an «acne ls also an error at law wmch would warram an arderafceninvari - "On me alive! hand. we mean. M course. mu :1 u armr-ly usmpolanl lar ma wan Own WI cenmarl pvoceedlnas la dlsagvaa Wllhlhs lrrduslnal Calm on me corlcrusllms or lruereuass avawn by Ihe lane! lmm me pruvea ar aammaa evldence an lru wound lira! no reasenaula lnlmrul xlmllany clrcumslanued would have aimed ax such a wncllslon or drawn such an lmerence An urnmoul lumm. hum puma urldmilhd llcu ll 71 armor um um In um Mlacv." (emphasls added) 13 ll ls lrua |ha| the ngm la reorgamsa ls a marlagenal prervgallve as firmly eslabllshed ln lmlliam Junk: 5 co (M) Bhd u. s. aalasingam {mo} 1 MELR 312; [1996] 2 MLRA an; [1997] 3 Due 11 of 15 sru pznmugyzzvuvnvuuvsza “Nair s.r.r nuvlhnrwm .. UIQG u may r... urwlrullly -mm: glam. Vfl muua war AMR 2565: [I997] 3 CL! 235 wherein me Coun of Appeal had also defined ‘rarenchmenl as follows. — 191 - Reuenchmem means “the ensename afsumlus Inbuuruv staff by In nmnlru/Iv Yer nny mason whalloavsr mnemse than as a pumshmem mlhcled by way aldlscvphnary a¢lKm'[ 1 [ma] Whether Irv: retmnchmam exerdse m a pamcum and u Dona me or almrvnu‘ m a quesuon M lacl ma ufdsgrnt dlpendmq Iur Ils resomlvon upon me Deeulwr has and arcumslances av each case n u will- nlllnd mu m Impluynrl cmlllcd In mum ms mu. In an manner he can u bus 59 lung: as man manag pm" a mmuua born - mu daelnlon LI lmmum mun ulminnllon mn by Ina Induslrlal Cmm Nawaver me mdusinzl Cowl e empowered. and mdeen aumaoum, la wwesugalz me has and wwmstances m a Dimcular new to delevmme wvvalhar um uumsu m power was In 13:1 Dona me ‘ (emphass adaed) 14 In cnowon Mn ylll Lxmmd v. um chm Hoek 5 Anal [2911] MLRHU 1:30 min CLJII 2321. me Hugh Cmm likewise scaled me nnnounte as vouaws. ~ 1171 'ln dlsrmssvvg me an Respcmdsnls oumermon and auowmg me Appucanls appueazm m. Cmm mm mm ca...m...a um Aupnnunm Dcullmn and Inmnnl «am .. ... umwlunv mm‘ as ml agumum plemgallvt 49 dead: IM puneues, snmegles mm ruqulrumnnl won - nmmunng or uovuunizlllon mm -- ma] Al an empwoyer, m. Appllclnlhrtl Inn «mm: mm: and volume of as Vnbnur me. ennsnsmn mm «In om.n.mm.~s olakzllvu ma flmcllun. mm novylnlullon we. mm conuquem In ncmmmlc and mm mnnngamunl o4 cm bum-es. an: no sowlne al smm of its umplnyees were mm to o. ndunflanl or nxculrv um . mu aemon w. axccuhd In me um. um scum usln nnnnunlsllo vlcl mlsalhmnfns employns, a ployu wu mun Incordlngly mama to uiummc mu n-mun axons (emphasis added) 15 The above decxswon was amrmea by we own at Appeal vme cwu Apnea! Na W-0I(A)»38—D1/2017 u... 1: .7: :5 sm pznmugyzzvuvnvuuvszo «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! The dlcisloll onus com a. That me lndusl I Court had erred in last and new when ll mlauppllad lne lugal prlnplples gonnnno lo ndundlncy and rezr-nenrnen . Ipoolflcullyr when it lrwnncllily epnelndnd (hit me 2"‘ Respnn cult‘: employment contract could only In valldly lerlrllrlalod lollowlng me oorllpl ' n ar lerrninaxlen ol lns LRT3 Prolscl. b. Thenhe Industrial Court had -rred ln um and law when l had concluded lnnl - voliundnncy um n cauld only nrlse upon the callullalloll or lallure of the LRT3 Pruisrrl; as, Havlrlg perused me lndnslnal cdurrs Award. I am of lhe vlew lhal lne lnduslrlal Conn erred ln [ad and law when ll wncluded lnel a redundancy sllualiun could Mlly arlse .n «he clrcurvlslarlces exphcllly slaled V1 clause 14 do me 2"= Respondenrs empldymenl cdnlram 17 we can be gleaned lrom lne Award of me learned cnemnan when he slaled as lpllows - 1291 rp pul nelenny I! lheappolrllmerllsolall lhe clennnnls W51! an 3 fixed lenn contract at O31Vlp|€}yVYV5/V|.F|llS|llIIIl\‘) clause 14 of me Claimants‘ uppulnunenl leners, me Cnmnllly :In only unnlnsu Iilnlr urvlcu ldr lne followlnll nawns av qruulvdl m uppn ln. cumplnllorl M on assifillmnrll lulvltly lhl Pro:-cl or on Where the cllenl lnslructs . ch np. of lurwrl dun to Illcnlrlpwullcu nr noll pmenn-nee an pull of on Clnlmnmx ur mu mm mm: dull nel cnmnluhv ll: count pr l- unnlnsud by me cllenl ahead afschedu w enmr 5 s m. [291 By ineerpominp an virlulls grounds or reasons (or which me clurn-me can In lennlnmd «nun Ihnlromploynlulli. nu Company rnex-s ll nblllldnntlyclullhal on Company wlll not tcmllvulo mo cl mam: lune : coodmuns Ind lbuvl hid nulmatlnlli-d ur cryuulllud um! um corllinnnlu kl pm-n. n IlIlp|9ylIllrl| nnlu ln. expi 011?: r d tnml colllracl or me 1-mllrnenr nllhe colldinoll -xpv Ind In cl...“ 14 man. »...ueus em pzmneyzevdvnvnpvszu «we. Smnl ...n.mn n. LAIQ4 m my n. ewnmun em. m.n.n n. nFluNG vtmxl xaq In lhn Ivunl me Pmjefl ma en 1119 camp!!!» as cnnrse or me unnnnmn by an cmnunuu of eeneame men nu Colnpnny could nonihly Iuccud in ll: cormnlion mm vitw 91 um Ialluu ea In: Propel In complu: [Is mm or Ina! n was xennunaxee by on Cllunt an a of Ichndnl . glnulllu ridulldincy Illuuion nee Instr: glvmg eawn rm me Company In vvuvgamse or venmmure us argamsnnon wmch may my load m renenunnenz er me cnnnenu u there was sulvlusufi libaw [:51 Tm Company was charmnu mlanlnun vman fllaamglha Iermmamn an an we malmanh met me reason my such (srvmnahun was an account L71 clause ueune npnumlmam Valle! al all me c mnnlsyemn wldunu bdon ma. Calm quit: many uannm in fify me Iuvminilvovl enn- CI-lmanu pm-an: m clnuu u In none ohm confllllnn ma down In mu» 1: van magma junnynne (M kmnlnntlon of .u an Elaimlnls. me ounducl M the Company In Iannlnalmg me cnennanrs pursulm In damn M0! the appomlmanl mum wn ch-lly m mean 0! me mannanus mnlran no e-npneymenn wvlh me Company mat ensures :eeun|y ac nun let me dumhon no men me (am: eennaexs nl ampvuymem ' (emphasis added] 15 Based on me above finding. me Veamed cnainnen had apphed a resmcluve |nlerpve|a|>on cllha (ervmnalion clause eune Empbyrnenl Conlract smoe |he Veamed chamnen nad made a findmy (hit me provision at (Mans: 14 of me Emplaymenl cunuacx had to be sausfiad nevme me 2"-1 Reepenaenrs amplnymenl could be tervrwlated for any reason, Incmdlng redundancy. 19 However, .n eennng In hvs lindmg. lhe Iearnee Chairman nea vauee to oonsxder me express residual ngm lo Cermmale me agreement repcsed no mm pemes as envisaged m Clause 14 as mews. — --14 Tunnlnitlml Yemlmnlmn n anon wmplelron of ma lnlgnmem av when the menu wnslmcls a change at nelson due to mmmpexence or mn-performance an yourwewotflme Fmmxdoau nmeempme ns eeumer xslemu \ a by me wen! areas of sc)1edu\a wmchever vs earhet Eixhu puny mnlmllnx an. ngm In umnin n ma lppnlnlnllnl hyulvlny not me min lwo mnlllhs nofict in writing me u .: :5 sm pznmngyzzvuvnvunvsza «wn. smuw ...n.mn s. U... n vsfly n. nrW\n|H|Y mum: mmn VI mum v-max 20. 21. 22 23. 24. Gmmty mu nu| be pm In ynu n yuu apl In Iovlmnale yam services wan ms Compmy pm. In Ilwmmaflun or Inn P-clad ma aumeu In ma Drum: hzndma my man documsms. elc' Kernnlwasws added) Based on the abave CIauss14,|I|s clear IJ1a\ the express condmans var termmahon macs to me auwmane mmmauen Mme eonuscl in urcumsv.-mes outsme me fixed term duration Mme contract, and nolhvng precruasa me Appucanl rmm (ermmanng the 2'“ Respundenfs empbymcnl {or any ulnar vahd reasons such as mxsmndun, poor penmmanoe or, as m me msvam case‘ redundancy Therelore‘ I vvew mat by hohmg that the 2"‘ Raspondenfs Iermmalvnn could only vanmy came about by sausiymg me spacmc eenamons lislsd in Chusa 14 of ms empluymanl conlrach the Indusmal cam had oecasxaned a clear ermv or Vaw by (army to apply me appmpnaxe principles cl law which arise in mnneclxon war: a claim at redundancy. Further‘ I am 07 the view that the lnduslnal Court, by ounflnlng Its vwew lo ms cundlhuns set out w Claus: 14 of (he amp\nymen| contract, lawled Io app\y the correct law or to ask usew me Iundamenlm queslxon as In whether a redundancy swluahon had‘ In ‘aw and VI Vad, ansen based on the cimumsvanees of |hB case. Upon perusal al me evidence produced beiove the uxausuial court, 1 find thal lhe Malaysvan Govemman| had dlrecfly suspended and placed me um Propel under review, mandaung than an stakeholders H1 Ihe LRT3 Frcqecl immemen! stringent oos| oplimwsllmn. The Malayswan Govammenls review culminated in a reslrucmnng of (he enlwe LRT3 Fmgech wmch mcmded sigmflcam changes such as an extended umehne for eompnemn from me to 2024 and a raduchcn In various deliverahles In Arkflek Akiprima Sdn Bhd v. Lllng slew Fate 5 Anor [2001] 1 MELR As: [2002] 1 ILR «so, me IndusInalCom1 considered that me enema! mnuenoe oflhe govemmenl uomd consmule a basis for retrenchmenl when n held Inler aha as iouows — ‘ wnsmsrme grounds «mme rE|renchmen| gwan by emmuyev are we met V5, vmemermeve had m lac: names a mum" m me uusmess ol the comparwdun m cwcumslances such as scamny uv raw rnituual an up :5 av :5 sm pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvszo “Nun: sum lunhnrwm .. med u my u. mum-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! lne avzrlabllny 0! WNCI1 lne running suns lazlury depends ulsuwpaan :1 warn nndar ma mar. M ma wovnmmt 4, or thing In nnoln whlcrl made n lrnaossllan to commul ma huslmsl Ixnblal a less or on rrraagra pmllu ' (emphasls added) 25 Premlsed on me almye and revlewmq lne evldence lnal has been adduced. l am dune Vlew me learned Chalrrnan lalled la adnslder mal me Appllcanrs decision |o reonganlse lls buslness operalmna was a Dona fide exemlse ln response to external loroes whlch could not be deprecaled or Ignored The Malayslan sdyernrnenl nad dlracuy suspended and revlewed me LRT3 Pmjech culmlnahng ln srgnmcanl changes m we same. specifically an exlendad llmellns lar oomplellon and reduulons Io varlaus delweranles 25 The lnduslnal Courl lalled Ia adequalely cansrder lne apprdprlale legal |esl as lo wnsmer a genulne redundancy sllualmn has ansen, and had hereby rrnsdlrecled lzsall 17! law and racl Thal ma lndusmal coun nan arrad ln fact and law and had lakan lnlo conaldar n inalavam rnauars whorl It had concluded that ma Appncam was required to omain me pannlsslan nl Praaarnna andlor MRCE-GK lo I-rmlnmn ma urvico (1! ma 2'" Raapondam. 27 on «ma lssue. naylng perused me learned cnaxrmans Award, he nas come to me lallawing llndlngs: - 1:3) ay making Ihls slalemerll me Campirly nannally cnrluadlx that n .5 human by me canflmons lald dawn VI me appomlmenl letter dared me as me and ma lmnnlry cl Flrlanoa maul: release Now: r nowhere lnuna slrucllovlfrlml the Cllenllurlhe casl Opvflmlsal n are». ay ma ulalayalnr. Guvlmmlnl van that any lnnmeum var lne company In Iumlinalu any of ma kly aaraannal. "ll Cumplny was also mx able to show «nus cenn any such Ilulruchnnl mun cm clsarn orEmployIr|h.I| purm n had bun ob ad for ma bumllullon of any :0 [Is employee. rn runs century tn ma my wndlllon lmpo d ay lhl Emmy-r aa mi ln me lelmera aaauinun-nxdaud ns.nI.znIs. n ms absence nl any lnauucuon (ram ma Ellinl or Emplnylr u anylaagad ln ma mm olaapolnnnnrn damd nuuzola on ma snannaa to um um al kty pllsonml wnhoul any war wflllen approval will run comrny me 16 9! x5 srn pzamngyzzvuvnvunvsza «nu. s.nn nuvlhnrwm a. med m my r... nflmnaflly sum. dnuuvlanl y. .nuna Wm! 1:: nu: mm M lppnlnlmnnl «mm aa.na.2o1e ind clnuse u aflhe uppolnlmnnl mm at on cuvnnnu - (emphasis added) 23 Based an one above Award of me learned Cnawnan. «ms cmm vnews Ina! me lnduslnal Court had made an error when wt had consumed \ha| based an the terms or me Vsuer 01 appmmmem as helween me Apphcam, Prassrana and MRCEVGK. clear mslruclinns andluv permlssxon had Ia be gwen la the Apphcanl nevuve m wmd vahdw dwsrmss me 2"“ Respondent 29. 1 am e! me mew that the wearned Chairman‘: nnamgs on «ms Issue are pervevse and enuneaus m law and m (am because: - 29.1 Any alleged ncn—ccmphanr:e mm the provlsxons 01 me agreement between me Apphclnl, Prasarana, and MRCBVGK has no beanng whatsoever on me que as m wneme: a buna flde redundancy suuauon nas ansen 29 2 There 15 newher any emphzymem nor any con|rac\ua\ rexamnsnrp baxween me 2M Rapondem and Prasarana and/or MRCB-GK, and lherelore the absence (:1 any appmva\ or pervrussnen fmm Chase emilles does not vinale the vahdwly Many veksnchment by the Appficanl. so runner, nms ceun \s of me new that even :1 (here Is any such non- compliance‘ vf Itexwsled, m wumd be a canlracluen mspme between me Applncam. Fuasayana and/ov NRCB-GK, and mus, me Induslnm caun had mlsdileaed nsew wn law by hmdvng that me terms of me agreement be\ween the Appncam, Frasarana, and MRCB—GK were delerrmnahve anne empmyrnenk relanonsmp belween me Apphcanl and me 2"“ Responuem. 11. Th! Indllllrial Court and In Iolml oi II (I whln I! found that the :05! review carriad out by (hi Manayuan Government had nofi yal hlln mad: on III! dill of Illmlnatlon 01 (III 2"‘ RIl|'JDrIdll1l’I nrvlcm wh Iby (Ila Indul Cour! d In take into nccnunt lhc comonls of me Inlslry of Finam:|'s puss nluu filled 12.7.2|‘lII announcing lhl VflY|D|l5 mnlurn I0 rlducl In! con! Ind mom of tho LRT3 FFOJOG1. v... 17 M 25 m pznmngyzzvuvnvunvsm «wn. snn ...n.mn n. U... a may n. nflmnnflly -mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa v-max e. we lnduslnal Court enred n fact wilulu n lallad Io nlvn due consldlrallolu to tho ml nl Ind vndlspuled laols, sooellloally nu mum" to nude. nu ml and wow onn. um wmlecl announced by the Mlnlsny of Flnnnco had ruullld m a Vlflnctloll In lhl App||=-Int‘: personllol rcqlllrvlvlonll. 3|. Hlnd (hat the lnduslrlal Court had mlsdlrecled use}! when concluded lha| the cosl VGVISW axerclse had not laken place at lhe llme the 2"’ Respondent‘: servloe was lermlnated and lalled Ia corlslder lne measures annevnoed by me Malays.-an eevernmenl aocordlng lo lhe out review exemlse 32. I find the finding of the learned Challman on (his lssue Is agalllsl and/or contrary to he Malaysian GmIarnn1erIl's awn pless release daled 12 7 ma‘ vvrnen makes expressly clear we ouleome or us oosl opllmlsalicrl exerclse ln lms respect. me Mlrllslry ol Flnanoe had stand lnler Illa as [allows lrl the sand prass lvlenss. - me nnal lolal cosl M me man Fn»ec1 IS reduced by 47% llum RMCH es ollon ro amass bllllorl vavng Malaysans a lolal el RM15 oz olllon vnlseasx wlll lnclmt pmilcxcosls lncludmg bul not lvnnad no Walk Fackagl Comlacls lWPEsy land Bmulsllmn. pmpcl mznagemem conaulunoy fun‘ opemlnorlzl and overnead eosls. as well as lnlalesl durlng mnsllumlun r (emphasls added) (See Enclosurn 3 ol plan 2:1 _ 261) 33. The Minlslry lurlner nlgnllgnls eaveral key respecls ln wnlen lne costs ler lhe LRT3 Pmled had been ophmlsed, lncludmg reduorng me seooe ellne pmlecl, exlendlng lne eumplellan Ilmehne by four addrlronal yeera and convemng lne plulecl lrom a PDF model no a fixed onoe model :4. This IS luflher corroboraled oy me undispu|ed laol lnal wmle me Malayslen Government nad announoed me oonvalslan ol lhe LRT3 Project llorn me FDP model lo lne fixed onoe model‘ lne aolual novallon agreernenl was only slgrled on 22.2.2u1e 35 I find lnal lne sleps which followed me Malayslarl Governmenrs press release were clearly lakerl lo lmplemsnl declslcns lnal had already been made‘ oonlrary lo we lnduslnal couns findlrlg man an. n of X5 am pznmngyzzvuvnvunvszo «we. Smnl luvlhnrwm a. d... a mm he anvn.l-v MW: dnuavlml v. nFluNa penal 1ne ac|ua\ ocsn opnnnnsannon exermse nan also no\ naken place an me hme nna cnanrnams were Iamuna|ed' as The Indusnnan Cam ansa canned to consider Ihe malenal eneans or me changes announced Dy me Malaysnan Govamnnenn vnde nna press Mlesse dated 12 7 2012‘ m yaflicular, "15 reduction II’! the scale 0! nne mm Pmnecn and an exnension annne pmject hmshnswhere nna Applncam was reqmred no do ness wnrk over a longer period on nnns. 37 More irnponannny, I find man me 7"’ Responaenn had oornoaded ounng nne prooeeding belore nna nnoosnnan caunn nnan ms changes annuunaau oy nne Mnnnslry an Fmance nn July 2013 would noqnma resnruclunng by me Appnicann ‘[5] o nsnnagaan no you mm nmongnolhnrlhnngs axlandmg nn. smaon daadlms by new addnbonal years would nnanananny anvacn ma namre. smpe ano nnlemnly M wnvk Involved Maannng no say Balm-e lhns ma Cumuiny waum luv: :2. -xuacn-a na mun an as oannvanaones by 2020 mwn had nnnnnn 2u24m mean essennally nn. um: [M lvuenaalrverablls se wurk would be mom splat! nu! Agvse or dnsagraa” A ween} n u <2 mm on an onns cnangss announcsd byxhe Mnn-nrym Fmanoen hom ma reduomn nnwsnsnonna vavnous changes no ms wupo oilhu LRT3 Frunscl annn ma levuad umalnna n pu| Ma ymn man. nn orderlo aowmmodzlz lhme charwes me Company was rammed In masses: Ind mllruclure Mi ananc womng on ma Pvuped Agree urdIsagru7 A var as. aasaa on nne aornnssnon Mine 2"“ Respondent above. me Inannsnnan courn had committed a sanaus error m fan ay falling no mnslder nns subsvannnve nrnuacn cl nna cnanges announced by nna Manaysnan Government on n2.7.2ons ano suhssquemly nmplemeruad by me Applncanln Prasarana and MRCB-GK. and wnanner ma sama wound gnve nse no a bone fide redundancy snnnanion. 39 Indeed‘ m savaran cases. such as‘ camr Pu an no Sdn and v. Sharmirni Devil [2000] I MELR 1:2; man) I ILR 302. me Induslnal Conn nas tuned with approval ma vouawnng passage nonn Harvey on |nduMrna\Cour1(Vo1 1)v Fur 15 ans sm pzunnngyzzvuvnvnnuvsza “Nana sanun navnhnrwm a. met! a my n... anmnauly am. flnunmnl n. mum v-man 1». sumvlest Ivan of nflundulcy mm wmn ms mmnsss mm. mm vmuloyt - of whunvn mm. n my a. um um. :- . nc umn, and mm Business mas mm umnlay-Ix buuuu :1 II opnmllny will! 3 nduud outrun. sun ms: "nu nul be so. Yheve can just as wan be . mdundarvcy svluahcn when: we rmmaaa acmevas the same oreveu an mueasefl nuv.nu| mm leweremplvyees. ma can come about Ihlough mechumulmn av cnmpulnnulmn m ‘I111 by mcreasad aomsvmy (empnass added) 40. Funhar, me mgr. Cuurl m we case at Slupllln Bong V. FOB (M Sdn Bhd & Anor [1999] 5 MLRH 107; mm 3 MLJ 411heldlha|- [<21 im nollm lnwihnl ndundlncy In mun» orwam no Ionuu Ridundincy silulfinnx an vmnm the nusnnsss requires kwlr Imploylu at whmwrklnd mmsy on lndusmm Duspulzsl (emphasis added) 41 Gwen the above. «ms com vs nf me view (ha| by lalhng lo lake mlo oansmeramn me matenai xmpscl of me cas1 remew exemse announced by me Malaysian Govemmenl, the wmpugned Awavd cnnlzins malena\ mfirmmes of facl and law, m mac n «ans |o adequately apprecvale lha| as a resuh a1 me sa exercwse, wmcn resmled m an exxsnaaa deadlme and a redudmn us (he scope 01 me LRT3 Projecl. ma Anphcanl reqmred lewer employees to do me work 01012 2"’ Responaam. 42 Adam to (haL I a\so find that not omy am the Inausmal coun reach an vrauanal conclusmn when n new mm me east review exemsa announced was me grass release had ya! la occur ax me me me 2"“ Respundenrs serwces were lermmated, but u had a\su failed m consider the actual effed at the exemss on me LRT3 Prujecl. and specmcaHy me Appncanrs wmldome reqmremenls m relahan (helelo L Thl|ndIlSfriI|CDuI1Irrldln tumsofllcls wllun If Ind Ia givl due cons: eration in (III III-Illrlll fink ihat althnugll some of Ike luncllons and tasks of mo 2" Rnpondonl as a Resident Eng car did not nap. (hi chlngu la (III worn and complullon data av me LRT3 Project means that lhu suid funnlons and tasks could be pmmm-a by me nmalnlng Rosldunl Englnnl and accordingly, il 5! nod disputed lhll fill lwo positions van m 9! 15 am pznmngyzzvuvnvunvszo «ma. am nmhnrwm s. U... w my s. mm-y am. dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! sum nnmuum TINGGI mum on KUALA LUIIPUR mum WILAVAH pznszxurum xunu LUMPUR, muvsm (auucuw KUASA-KUASA mus) rzmononm um K ssmuuu KEHM mu no wuszvmvmzu Dllam parka/a Award Mahkamah Fvrusahaan Na 334 Tahun 2:221 bvnankh 2242021 den auenma clan Pemnmn um 2912021 damn Kes Minksmih Pevusahaan Nu A/44455/19 Dan Dalam perkara mm plmmmvvan umuk Fgnntah Cenmran Dan oaxam Derkam Sekxynn 2o Akla Pemubullgin Pemsahaan 1967 Dan Dawn pemara menoenau Jaduav 1, ma Mammn Kahnbdnun «sea Dun Dzlam Derkava Aturan 53 Kaedarvkaedah Mahkimah zmz ANTARA Muss cumuusan and Femomn DAN 1 Mlhlumah Puusahaan Mllaylla 2. momma Nun am Naslr Mnhlmafl Reapumwkesponaen Heard mgslner mu /Duiengar bersama v... 1 .7: :5 sm pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsza «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! (including the ielevanl functions and (salts) were combined and nervomied by a eingie Resident Engln a. The Industrial Courl emd whnn it t led to give due consideration to in. material fact that the 4. cllon pvocoaa IAIIII by (III Appllizanl wu fair and nporop blclun an the empioyees were engaged on fixed nemi contracts‘ trio nssessmenl was conducted by me ctii Resident Englnur and the e action w: I: d en the mu and iunctione aiiectod by the reduced scorn oitrie LRT3 Pmjacl. 43 in this respect. iririd that the 1“ Respondeniiaiied to appreciate |ha\ me piincipie oi ‘Last in, First om (LIFO) was oi iimiied utility in trie insient ease, as all Resident Engineeis iinciuaing the 2"“ Respondent) were engaged on simiiar fixed-term contracts 4:: Far inis isasnrie I VIEW inai it was appiopnete ior the Anphnanl to proceed. as it did, by assessing ine overall penonnanoe oi all Residenl Engineers engaged in me LRT3 Pioieci and pieaicaiing iie decision based on its assessment 45 in Sarawak siieii Bhd v. Ismail sanat 5 075 [m2] 1 MELR mi [2002] 2 [LR 371,015 ‘fIdU§‘VIEICOU|18CC€Dl8d a departure ham lhs UFO Drlnclple in a retrenchment exercise observing Inter aiia as IDIVOWS - -ine mun agiees wim ine Subfllissmn oi ieeinad couneei ioi me oompany on me non-vigbfifly oi the UFO pnncioie mie are amnln aulltorllins iiiiei dlcidl man an Implulyif may Ior sound and in main depart [mm sltlclly applying in. use pmicipie. Such a. nun: an inn vied on me bull oi in. .aiiity, cnmpnllbllllyi suinbilny and emciency oi Jnninl omc-is who am mu rd in pimi-once la mmr eeniei eivicm me lo in. metric lnhensts omi umployur.” (emphasis adaadi 46 Likewise, in Ahmld Marxukl hln Abdul Rank v. coicom Networks sun and [2013] MELRIJ zou me Indusinai Cnurl observed as ioiiows: - v... )1 in 2; IN pZnmivigyZEVUVDVuDYS2O “Nana s.n.i inmhnrwm be ii... M may i... nrwiriaflly siiii. dnuumril VII aF\uNG Wm! 47 4a 49 50 5|. 52 ‘Ill me absence al dnuble standard or nesrrss, me calm r... In: ml: Ia plly In (M uunrrlem pres. mpleryud eyme company lempnasrs added) In mwleu Packard (M) Sdn aha v. Thangasamy arewn Grunlyulham noon] 1 MELR 1l2;[200D]1ILR198,|helrldusInal Court held as lellews. » ‘In reel oemeo uses shuw that ll ls me Implnyu who r. on ludgu ul me -rrrployu-s poflovmlnnu me me llllpluyul has no clvlalcn hm to accent Ihis jrmgrrrem rm ecnplnyel who nullnnnd mo uvnulnl mm onlvln mew mu M Ma mm mm. no-.~ lerhphasrs added) Based on the above. I find that the lndus1rlaI Court erred ln finding mat me Appllcanl was ohllgaled II.) rnlorm me 2- Respormeru abnm the ippralsal and the reason lheraof, and the (allure Ia du so rendered me appralsal male fldes The findlngs ol me lnduslnal courr are clearly rn mnfllcl wlzh eslaolrsneo lnduslrlal lurlsprudence, whroh has held |haI lhere ls no requlremehr lo na|lfy employees at me selecuon process or ID corroucl appralsals personally mm me employees Funlrer, me lnduslvlal Ccun ccmmllled e sennus error of can by determinlng lhal l| was lrlcumben| upon lhe Appllcanl (0 Lake sepemle sleps lo address me 2m Responderrrs perlormanoe, when your perlormenoe was never rhe basls luv me 2"“ Respondenrs ursmlssal The lnouslnal Court also lalled lo appreclale that the cmerla employed oy Ihe Applrcerrr, In wl|, assessmg lhe Resldenl Erlglneels‘ respective yeriorrnancasl and lelrmg mlo wnslderatlcn oomplelrrls vlssawrs me 2" Respenoenrs oerlorrrrenoe were a relevanl mener lor lhe Applleml lo lake lrllo cnnslderallon ln seleclmg which slalllo relrench lrom lhe LRT3 Prolecl, and «ms ls sepemle and dlsllhcl lrom a (ermlnauon for poor perlormanoe. Further, the lrlfluslnll Court had entirely lgrlored Ihe Anpllcanfs oomparelive organrselron charls, Whlch had reflected the mnsolldallon ol several posmons and me rumoval cl cerlaln fBSDOVVSlDl\Y|IESl whlch were taken over by MRCB~GK e... n n? 15 m pznmnrgyzzvwnvunvsza “None Smul luvlhnrwm .. med e may r... nflmnullly mm. mm. VI nFluNa Wm! 53 Added lo lnal, l find lhal the lnduslrial courl did nol address me clearly relevanl lac: (hall under me Aonlicanrs new organisation charts. lne ‘Quality Assurance no longer exisleo, moreolleli conlemporaneous mmmunlcalluns belweeri lne Aoolioam and MRCB-GK Idnher eanrirrned lnal lne ‘fiuallly ;e.eurenoe' Iunclmn would be MRCEGK responsibility. 54. Slml|arly,(helndusIniaICoul1 did nol address the fact mat the 0|’!!! Residenl Engineer roles were consolidated, for examplai whereas there had previously been lwo Resident Engineer (M&E) rolee rnese nad subsequsnlly neen Combined inlo a single posiliori. conclusion 55 Fremised on me reasons given above, l am oi lne View lnal lne lnddslnal courl s findings aswnlainad in me impugned Award were marred by rrialerial errors ofracl and law. 55 rrie leanied clieirmen oi lrie lndusmel Caurl nad occasioned a luridamenlal ermr wnen he construed me lerms oi me 2"“ Respondenls employment mnlract to mean man his employment could only oe lerrninaled pursl.lnrl| lo lne lnree express coridilions slaled (herein and for no other reason including redundancy 57 The lndnslrinl ceurn error was iimner compounded wnen ii lunlier concluded that me conlraclual lenris between the Applioanii MRCB- GK and Pi-asarana dlveclly alleoled the Aoplicarirs powerio dismiss ils employees. 55 The Industrial ooun occasioned ldruier senoos errors o1 fad and law wneri ll oendluded lnsl ine eosi reyiew exercise oy lne Malaysian Goyernrnenl nad nolyel been implernenled as in me lime o1 lrie 2” Rspondenrs dismissal, wnereoy I! lied lailed lo properly aooreeiaie the press release oy lne Minielry oi Finance dared ‘2n7»2m8i and riad iurlnerniore leiled lo lake lnlo considerelon lrie subslanllve efiects oi the changes announoed by the Malaysian eoirerrinieni lo the LRT3 Proiecl Fun 1: ml 15 rn pzunrrrgyzzvwnvuuvsza “Nair Smll luvlhnrwlll r. in... e my in. nflnlnullly MIMI flnuavlml vn .rinne WVM 59 Funhen me Industrial ooun erred in M appreuauon and applvcamcn ml the selection cmsna adoplad by (he Appllcarn IVI smectlng me 2"“ Respondent for redundancy, whemnn me mauscnsl Cnurl had applied the reqmremenls for msnussal an the grounds 01 poor pednnnance‘ wmch are mapphrable and e\evanI to ma Ins|anl rams so Pvermsed on me aloresam reasons, I am 0! me view man me decnsxon onne mduscnal Cowl ws lainled wnh the error oflsw and/or mauanamy and/or unreasonatfleness wmch wanant me cunal mlsvvenhon av this Court. in. As such. \ allowed the Appllcanfs applicahnn lnr wdmizl rm/new m JR 268, JR 269. JR 270 and JR 271 C051 cl RM 1,500.00 wnn aHocaml to be paid Dy me 2* Respondent m JR 265, JR 259‘ JR 270 and JR 271 In the Aunncam Dated: ['5 January 21:24 Ahmad Kamal hm Md snama Judge High Conn Kua\a Lumpur v... u M 2; m pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsza «mm. smuw lunhnrwm .. U... n may he nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! counsels Far the Appflcanl. am 1 Thavalmgam (Enmk David Tan Sang Keat wnh mm) Teluan T. Thavalmgam ea. Co Peguambela flan Peguamcara sums K-341‘ ms 3‘ B\oK K. Na 2, Jalan suuans. semis Mon| Knara‘ 50480 Kua\a Lumnur. Fm me 2" Respondent: Enclk Mohammad Am bm Shanpufldnn Teluan Razi1.Abdu\A1Iz 5 Partners Peguambela den Feguamcara 33-3 .3. am am Fkmn Bmck 3‘ Megan Avenue 1, No, :99, Jalan Tun Razak. some Kuala Lumpur (Ru; Tuan- 43951/19/RAAP/MASlU—hak|mj ..ms.us m pznmngyzzvuvnvunvsza «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max mum MAHKAMAN nusm DMLAVA nu KUALA LUIIPUR mum wnuvm wsnssxumm KLIALA LUIGPUR. muvau (amuzunu KuAsu<uAsA sous) Pzrwonomm umux ssmuuu KEHAKIMAN MD M gs.2mm2u21 mm parkara Award Mankamah Plrusahaan Na s32 ram 202: benankh 2242021 am mtsvlma men Femohon pads 194202! awn Kai Mahkzmah Ferusahaan Na A/A4486/19‘ nan Dalam pemara sualu ne/mahanan unluk Permian Calxamru Dan Damn perkara Seksyen 2:: Am Pemubungan Fem:-Ihiun I951‘ Dan Dalam nelkara manuenau Jeans‘ 1‘ Am Mahkamah Kehakvman 1964. Dan Dawn parkara Aluran 53 Ksedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA Muss Cansulxsdn ans Pemohnn am 4. Mahkamah Pcmnhun why... 2 mum: B-hurl um Ibrlhlm Rnspundaniespnnflnn me-ms sm pznmugyzzvuvnvuuvszo «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Judgment Inlmduclion t The Applicant nad med judicial review applillltan Na WA—252B8r G7/2021 (JR 283). ND.: WA-25»269»D7/2021 (JR 28D), Nu . WA-25- 270-07/2021 (.|R27o) and No WA—25-271-07/2021 (JR 211) under order 5: oi tne Rutes at court zotz (RDC) ior amongst otners. an Order 07 Certtorart to quash the Induslnnt Court Awards N0 835 of 2021, No 531 012021, No: 834 1752021 and ND 832 of 2021 da|ed 22.4 2021 respec' Vy 2 Aitnoudrt lhese annitceimns emanate irorn separate Awards at ttte industrial court, they an relate to wnat are essentially tdenttcat lens. tndaad, att iour cases were heard lagelhevin tne proceedings oeiore tne tndtrstrtei Conn, and me oontents oi tne Awards trtentsetves are suostanttvety rdenttoat 3 In the above Award, tne First Respondent (lndunrlal court) new that the Second Respondent tn JR 268, JR 259, JR 270 and JR 271 nad been dtsmtssed by the Apotrcantwttttout tust cause and excuse 4 JR 26% JR 270 and JR 271 are fixed to be heard together with this JR 268. 5. Alter the hearing I allowed me Applicants appttoations tn JR 268, JR 259. JR 270 and JR 271 i win now set out the grounds at my judgment Background Fact! 6, Tne Iecte Ieadtng to ma mtng 01.“? 268. JR 269, JR 270 and JR 271 are atrrtost tdenttcat and are adopted wttn andlar without modificauon from the parties’ written submissions and can be summarized as Ioltws: - 61 Tne Applicant ts a firm ot oonsuntng engineers and was appolnlsd by Prasarana Malaysia aarnad (Puuronn) to went on me Light Rail Transit Line 3 (western corrtdort Page 5 ms rn pznmrrrgyzzvuvnvtruvszo “None s.n.t luvthnrwm .. .r..a a may t... nflmnnttly mtmn dnuavtml VI nFtuNfl vtmxt l=rolecl (the um Prolm). A| lns malanal lama, MRCE- George Kent Sdn Ehd (IIRCB-GK or (he l.hen—PDFj was appolnled as me ‘Prolecl Dellvery Partner rasporlslble lorlhe management and supervlslarl of the LRT 3 Pmled’, albell the uluma|e owner ol Ihe LRT3 Fralecl was and ls the Malayslan Gnvernmenl, whlch malrllalned final aulhonxy over the same a.2 The 2"‘ Rsspondanl was specifically employed lo work on me slle cl lns LRT3 Prolool as a Resrdenl Englnaev. Llghl Hall Transll 3 —Wes1em corndor, lor a cwoyeav rlxed penod lrorn 3.7 zmv unlll 30 6.2019, wrm a oasrc salary ol RM le.oou.oo par rnonln 5.3. Follawlng me 14*" Geneml Electlons on 9.5.2015. me then- naw Malayslsn Gavemmarn lmplemanlad a revlew or all Isrgs» scale prolecls. mcluding the LRT3 Prolscl 5 4 MRCB-GK nsd rnslmaad |he Aoolrcanl [as well as all omar sub-conlractors lnvolved In me LRT3 Pmlecl) lo nold all reviews and approvals lor snoo drawrngs and submsslons and no stop overlime and sum umy one work as Thereafler. mere was an announcement lay me Mlnlstry ol Flnanee on 12.7.2013 lnax, wnrle lne LRT3 l=ro,ec1 would canllnue, there would be slgnlficanl changes made. lnoludlng rnleralla me Iollawlng 7 (a) the llmelme lor wmplellon of ms LRT3 Pmjecl was revlsed fram 2n2lJ to 2024. (bl more would be a naduclron In one overall oonslruollon size and design oi lne LRT [ram depot and LRT svalions due lo me change lvom 42 sets or scar lrarns lo 22 sels ora- canralns. and lol me oonslruchon omve slallons would be shelved and me 2km underground tunnel and underground stauan at Persraran Hisnammuddrn, snarl Alarn would be canoellad v... ; ans m pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsm “None Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. o... w my r... nflmnullly mum: dnuavlml w. .nuna Wm! 5 6 The above cnanges eflecfively enrauea slgmficanl changes to and an overau reduclxm m scape, whereby me LRT3 Prorecn was changed mm a Prqecx Dclwary Farmer model ha a fixed pnce (Le. turnkey or ‘Design and Bum‘) contram 6 7 The various contractors mvmvad m the LRT3 PNJBCI ware Informed of the cos| re-new exercwse mvowing the Mvuslry er Finance we letters dated 2 7 2619 and 9.7.2018‘ whereby more aspects 0! me LRT3 Pmrect warn DIAI on hold or ummad enurely. venous rneenngs were also hem mn MRCE~GK w drscuss the ws| 0plimIsE|IDrI exemse, mcludmg mler aha Ihe ormssmn with: 51x Smllons. a.e. Around October zms, me anecme was given by MRCB»GK to oo\|o<;live\y mslmclure (ha LRT3 Frayed orgarusafion Chan and sue supemsron staff to supper! the new “Design and Build’ rnouer. ms meant me Apphcanfs organrsauon, wgexher vntn me other uexaneu Des-gn cone-man: mu noes) were expecied |o work with MRCBGK mm rewer s\af1 m/era“. s 9 Based on an 01 the above. the Avphcant ennuumed a revrew ohls szamng needs and reorganized the teams‘ where among other «rungs, me Me MAE‘ neanu were merged, and me ouamy Assurance‘ mncuon was transferred rmrn me Apphcam |u MRCBGK 61D.Funher and In add on to |he above, mere had been sugnincanx aerays In payment rrorn Mxcaeokr when were suosxannal rn namre and had eenousry slrarnad me Applicant‘: resources These delays nau amounted to saveml rnunens over a srgnmcann Ienglh or lime, and had prompled the Apphcant |o rngnngm to MRCE~GK |he extreme ermeumes m paying sva« assrgnea lo the LRT3 Project on mu Iple oocasmns. and were even repcrled m me news 611. The Apphcanl had cm of necessny Immemerlled a salary dalerment scnerne (or aw staff eammg above RM 5,000 on a month‘ sramng m as reuer dated 2132013 |e an sum as lallaws - ‘Ruennoe Vs made to mnlnwn nan melting on me 22 June mm and 21 Auwusx zara ;..nam rn pzemmgyzzvwnvurzvsza “Nana a.n.r lunhnrwm s. H... a my r... annnn-y am. dnuamnl VI mum war As dlscuued and agreed we nereoy wrifivm mat as a result oi curlan|markelm:idl\luri1 and ine deraun in Acmdulad Dlymlritl by our nrerer wants tria manaoenienr has In aitarna we out to lmplsmanla salary aelelmem exarsiseidrstart earning more tnan am: am a nrenin ‘ 512 Flowing lrnrn all oi trie above‘ lfl order to restructure its operations lollowino the cost-reduction directives of tne Malaysian Government and to meet the revtsed sodpe ol tne LRT3 vroiecti trie Applicant was necessarily required to reoonsldertts manpower requirements 613 Prernired on me loregolng, tne Applicants crriel Reside-it Engineer had assessed tne uanous employees under nie purview. and tne venous teams were restnrolured oased on lrie eliangas to the LRY3 Project 514 As a result, Slgnlficam changes were made‘ Including me merging of oorri Mes rearns into one and me lransfer of Quality Aesuranoe respdnsitaillties lronr the Applicant (under the PDP niodel) Io MRCB-GK [under me Design and Euild‘ rnedelt consequently, ten no) employees were lotmd to be redundant including 01:2" Respondent is 15 Not long after inst, lrie Apptroant had by way or a letter daled 29 3.2015 proceeded to lerrninete the 2“ Respondent lrorn his employment eilectrve on 3l.iu zoia, due to the primary reason trier the MRCE—GK lclient) has rnstmeled tne Aoolieantto partially rrold oertein ponions oirtie Projacl as part or tne Protect‘: cos! optirnizatron Semis: by the Malaysian soveninienr. 5 ls Dissatisfied with the termination, the 2"“ Respondent. togstrier witrt three other aflecled employees, trad lhereafler med a represerilalton o1 unlawful dismissal at me Industrial Rslalinns Department under seuion 20 or the Industrial Relations Act 1967, wnlon was trtereaiter relerred to me Industrial court by tne Honourable Minister M Human Resources lor adiudication. 6.17 Ferlmanllyi me 2"‘ Respondent‘: pleaded case was trier there was no genuine redundancy undenying trie decision to terminate ms services‘ whereby his positions and lunctions mucus ru ozemrrrgyzzvtlvnvunvszo “None s.ii.i luvlhnrwm is. u... a may i... aiirin.ii-r MIMI flnuavlml VI .riuno Wm! were stm tn extslenue Moreover, he asserted that me Apptrcant was not undergoing any nnanctat dtmountes wntcn requrred that ne he retrencned 5 Is. wrtn the agreement of all paruest all tour cases were neerd |oge|hev were tne tndustnat oeurt. 5.19. The tndustnal Conn subsequently proceeded to hand down tne tmpugned Award deted 22.4 2021 tmtdtrrg |hat Inc 2"” Respondent had been dtsmlssed wilhoul just cause or excuse and ordered tne Apphcanl |o paytne 2"‘ Respondenta hate: 0! RM moon on in back wages 5.20. The Appllcam. being dtssatisfied wttn tne tmpugned Award, Ihevsafler Nari the Instant appfinaltcn for judicial review, seekmg the wrtal inlervanhun Oflhls Honourable COLIN The grounds for just ‘II rvvlnw 7. Based on tne 5la|emenL tne Apphcanl seeks to cneuenqe the rndustriat court dectston based on the following grounds: - ‘M The! ma lnduslnal Conn had erred In {an and law when it rnrsapptted tne Iegat pnnctples germane lo redundancy and relmnchmam; specmcauyt when it erroneousty aonuuded tnat tne 2"'= Respondent‘: employment contract eeutd only be valtdly Iermmaled fulluwing tne edrnptetrun or tennmatran at the LRT3 Fmjacl‘ 7 2 ThalII1e|ndus(rIa|COIm nad erved In tact and taw when rt had cnnduded tnat a redundancy slluahon could nnly ans: upon the cancallslton or r we 0! the LRT3 Project: 7 3 That the tndustnat Conn had erred In tact and law and had taken rntn cansrderatuon trrelevent matters wnen tl had oancluded mat tne Anphcanl was requved to obtain the permrssron ul Presarana end/or MRCEVGK to temnnate the servtce oi the 2“ Rasvnndent »..u.,ru rn pznmnrgyzzvwnvuuvsza “Nate s.n.t luvthnrwm r. u... e my r... nrwtnuflly MIMI dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 7.4 The indusuriai court erred in Ierms or facts wnen n icund inai me ccsi review camed oul by me Maiaysran Government nad ndi yet been made an ine dale oi lerrmnahon 01 me 2"“ Respondents SBNIDG, whereby the indusinei cdun iaiied lo |ake mlo aoeouni me conienis oi ine Ministry 0! Finances press release daied 127 2015 announcing the various measures to reduce me casl and scope otme LRT3 Proieci: The lndusilial coun erred in fact when il iaiied to give due oonsiderallnri mine rnaienai and undispuied vests, speafically me measures to reduce me cost and scope oi the LRT3 Pmied announced by the Ministry on Finance, which had resuiied In a vedualon in me Applicanfs pereonnei requirernenis: 76 Tne indusirial Courl erred in terms oflacts when ii med (0 give due aonsideralion Io Ihe malenal fact mat aiincugn some cnne hmclmns and Iasks mine 2" Respondenl as a Residwil Engirieerdld nut sippi ine change mine scope and oornpienen daia at me LRT3 Prciecl means that me said runcnons and (asks oouid be periormed by me ramaimng Residerfl Engrneer and accordingiy, ii is rim disputed that one Iwo posiucns (including me velevaril iuncncns and vasksi were combined and perionned by a eingie Residanl Engineer, and 7.7. The irrdusinai Ocurl erred wnen ii railed to give due cansidaralmn lo the maienai iaci inai ma selection process used bylhe Applicant was lairand appropnaie because an me employees were engaged on fixed ienn oonuacis. ine assessrneni was oamiucted by me cniei Resrdeni Engineer and the seiecimn was based on me areas and iunciidns aiiecied by me reduced scape oi me LRT3 Prqecl Tho uw 8 Judiaai Revrew is eneraily concerned with the decision making process where me mpugned decision is flawed on me ground oi prooedurai impropriely. me In al is ru pzemngyzzvuvnvuuvsm «nu. s.n.i luvihnrwm a. met! a my r... unmnniily MIMI dnuaviml VI .nune Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-270-07/2021

PEMOHON MMSB CONSULT SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) MOHAMAD NAZLY BIN NASIR MOHAMAD

Judicial Review - The Applicant filed applications for an order of Certiorari to quash the decisions of the Industrial Court dated 22.4.2021 pursuant to a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the 2nd Respondents whereby the Industrial Court had found the 2nd Respondents had been dismissed without just cause or excuse - Whether there was genuine redundancy.

15/01/2024

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fb5a3f45-4e2c-4988-8b3a-1b14dc72e8e6&Inline=true

15/01/2024 15:50:11 WA-25-270-07/2021 Kand. 32 S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N RT9ayxOiEmLOhsU3HLo5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25—27u—o7/2021 Kand. 32 15/on/2n2L 15 mwn rmmmm TINGGI MALAVA nu mun LDIIPUR mum wnuvm Psnssxurum xum umpun. muvsu Aammum KuAsA.xuAsA mus» wzmonmum uunug gamuom K‘ENA>GMfl go wA‘z5-255477/2021 Dnlsm pevkarz Award Mnhkamah Perusahaan No ass raw. 2921 bonankh 2242021 can dflenma olen Pemomn pad: zuzuzw dalam Kai Mahkanuh Perusanaanua A/4—us3/I9‘ Dan Dalam pemara mm uavmnmrun umuk Penman Csmoran‘ Dan Dawn pmm Seksyan zu ma Pemubcmgan Puusahaan 1957. Dan Dalam ualkala mengenav Janus! 1 Am Mihkamah Kahildmnn mu. Dan Dz\am perkara Amvan 53 xaeaanxaeaan Muhkamah 2012 ANYARA mass co-uunsnn am Pmvwhon am 1 M-mm-n mum. nn Mallyslx 2 Viv cum. wan Raspondenrfissponaen Heard logelharwnh / Dwdengar hersnml Due : .« 15 sm Rwzyxouzmmnstuznlofiv «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! mum runxnmm mom MALAVA on nun; LLIMPUR mum wuunu pznszxuvum xugu umvuw. uuuwsu rsarucuu KUASA-KLIASA xrusr PERMOHOMAN unrux ssmxnu KEI1AKlM5y ug WA~25~lEI—(I7/1021 Dnlam perkam Award Mankamah Puusahean No as: Yahun 2021 xmunn. 2242021 can mlenma oxen Pemahcn mu. 294202: dahm Kas Mnhkamnh Pelusahaan No A/44484/19 Dan uawam penars susm pemmmnin umuk Penman Cemoran‘ Dan Dalam Devkzm Seksyen 2a ma Pemummgnn Puruuhaan I961‘ Dan Dawn nencava mennenax Jaduzl v. Akla Mahkamah Kahakrmnn 1994. Dun Dalam perkala Alumn 53 Kaeaamcaeaan Mankzmnh 2m: ANTARA Muss Conlull San am: Pemomn om 1 u-mum.» Ptmsahnn Mmym 2. Ln Khurn vmg Resvnnden-Resmnden mm Iogalmr Mm / Dwdengav naruma mu Mxs sm Rwzyxouzmmnstuznlofiv «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 9 However‘ the law has now developed to allow a dacrslon lo be challenged on gvourlds O9 Illegallly and lrratlonalllyl which then permus ma Coulis Io scru|inIzs me daclsrorl no| only lurlhe process but also for substance 10 ll rs sellled law lrlal lhe mgr: courl mu rml rrrlerlara wllh a denislon af me lnduslrial cuurl unless ll can be eslaulrsned lrral lrre declsion ls lnlecled wlm errors ol law. 11 The mearung afermv or law has also been explalned bylhe oourl ol Appeal m we case or syarlkal Kondman ulelayu Kelaman and v. 1 nlpnfl wcnlm Unlon mus) l MLRA zec; mes] 2 cu 743; [1995] 2 MR 1601; [1995] 2 MLJ 311 ln lhe lollowrrrg words. “It ls nellherlus nor dull hle In name: In Ixhnulhvl dufinluun 0! mm Imnunll no In trier M I... rm me calagurles on such an error are no! uased. But [I may In 3 u am In urrnv av law would bd diwloud il ma declslon-ullklr uks hlmsell me umng qnnsliun urum lnlo account mlmm cnnlldlrluons nr orun. Ia uh nlo Ixnurll ulovnnk clmslflevallons [whal may be wnvemenlly lermed an Anlsmmn: errerldr ifhl mllcnrllllull In mm of y um ul-mu. ar ruluppll. or mlssulu a pvlncvnle ulme an ml l.Iw ~ lemphasls added) 12 surularly, ln me case ofAlrsp:-:1 Manug-mom sarvlcu Sdn Bhd v. Col (3) Human: Sinuh cluugur slngll man] 1 MLRA cu; [zoos] 4 CL! 17, me Conn 01 Appeal held lhal an erroneous lrllerenee an «acne ls also an error at law wmch would warram an arderafceninvari - "On me alive! hand. we mean. M course. mu :1 u armr-ly usmpolanl lar ma wan Own WI cenmarl pvoceedlnas la dlsagvaa Wllhlhs lrrduslnal Calm on me corlcrusllms or lruereuass avawn by Ihe lane! lmm me pruvea ar aammaa evldence an lru wound lira! no reasenaula lnlmrul xlmllany clrcumslanued would have aimed ax such a wncllslon or drawn such an lmerence An urnmoul lumm. hum puma urldmilhd llcu ll 71 armor um um In um Mlacv." (emphasls added) 13 ll ls lrua |ha| the ngm la reorgamsa ls a marlagenal prervgallve as firmly eslabllshed ln lmlliam Junk: 5 co (M) Bhd u. s. aalasingam {mo} 1 MELR 312; [1996] 2 MLRA an; [1997] 3 Due 11 of 15 sru ammzmldrmsumu “Nair s.r.r nuvlhnrwm .. UIQG u may r... urwlrullly -mm: glam. Vfl muua war AMR 2565: [I997] 3 CL! 235 wherein me Coun of Appeal had also defined ‘rarenchmenl as follows. — 191 - Reuenchmem means “the ensename afsumlus Inbuuruv staff by In nmnlru/Iv Yer nny mason whalloavsr mnemse than as a pumshmem mlhcled by way aldlscvphnary a¢lKm'[ 1 [ma] Whether Irv: retmnchmam exerdse m a pamcum and u Dona me or almrvnu‘ m a quesuon M lacl ma ufdsgrnt dlpendmq Iur Ils resomlvon upon me Deeulwr has and arcumslances av each case n u will- nlllnd mu m Impluynrl cmlllcd In mum ms mu. In an manner he can u bus 59 lung: as man manag pm" a mmuua born - mu daelnlon LI lmmum mun ulminnllon mn by Ina Induslrlal Cmm Nawaver me mdusinzl Cowl e empowered. and mdeen aumaoum, la wwesugalz me has and wwmstances m a Dimcular new to delevmme wvvalhar um uumsu m power was In 13:1 Dona me ‘ (emphass adaed) 14 In cnowon Mn ylll Lxmmd v. um chm Hoek 5 Anal [2911] MLRHU 1:30 min CLJII 2321. me Hugh Cmm likewise scaled me nnnounte as vouaws. ~ 1171 'ln dlsrmssvvg me an Respcmdsnls oumermon and auowmg me Appucanls appueazm m. Cmm mm mm ca...m...a um Aupnnunm Dcullmn and Inmnnl «am .. ... umwlunv mm‘ as ml agumum plemgallvt 49 dead: IM puneues, snmegles mm ruqulrumnnl won - nmmunng or uovuunizlllon mm -- ma] Al an empwoyer, m. Appllclnlhrtl Inn «mm: mm: and volume of as Vnbnur me. ennsnsmn mm «In om.n.mm.~s olakzllvu ma flmcllun. mm novylnlullon we. mm conuquem In ncmmmlc and mm mnnngamunl o4 cm bum-es. an: no sowlne al smm of its umplnyees were mm to o. ndunflanl or nxculrv um . mu aemon w. axccuhd In me um. um scum usln nnnnunlsllo vlcl mlsalhmnfns employns, a ployu wu mun Incordlngly mama to uiummc mu n-mun axons (emphasis added) 15 The above decxswon was amrmea by we own at Appeal vme cwu Apnea! Na W-0I(A)»38—D1/2017 u... 1: .7: :5 sm Rwzyxouzmmnmznmfiv «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! The dlcisloll onus com a. That me lndusl I Court had erred in last and new when ll mlauppllad lne lugal prlnplples gonnnno lo ndundlncy and rezr-nenrnen . Ipoolflcullyr when it lrwnncllily epnelndnd (hit me 2"‘ Respnn cult‘: employment contract could only In valldly lerlrllrlalod lollowlng me oorllpl ' n ar lerrninaxlen ol lns LRT3 Prolscl. b. Thenhe Industrial Court had -rred ln um and law when l had concluded lnnl - voliundnncy um n cauld only nrlse upon the callullalloll or lallure of the LRT3 Pruisrrl; as, Havlrlg perused me lndnslnal cdurrs Award. I am of lhe vlew lhal lne lnduslrlal Conn erred ln [ad and law when ll wncluded lnel a redundancy sllualiun could Mlly arlse .n «he clrcurvlslarlces exphcllly slaled V1 clause 14 do me 2"= Respondenrs empldymenl cdnlram 17 we can be gleaned lrom lne Award of me learned cnemnan when he slaled as lpllows - 1291 rp pul nelenny I! lheappolrllmerllsolall lhe clennnnls W51! an 3 fixed lenn contract at O31Vlp|€}yVYV5/V|.F|llS|llIIIl\‘) clause 14 of me Claimants‘ uppulnunenl leners, me Cnmnllly :In only unnlnsu Iilnlr urvlcu ldr lne followlnll nawns av qruulvdl m uppn ln. cumplnllorl M on assifillmnrll lulvltly lhl Pro:-cl or on Where the cllenl lnslructs . ch np. of lurwrl dun to Illcnlrlpwullcu nr noll pmenn-nee an pull of on Clnlmnmx ur mu mm mm: dull nel cnmnluhv ll: count pr l- unnlnsud by me cllenl ahead afschedu w enmr 5 s m. [291 By ineerpominp an virlulls grounds or reasons (or which me clurn-me can In lennlnmd «nun Ihnlromploynlulli. nu Company rnex-s ll nblllldnntlyclullhal on Company wlll not tcmllvulo mo cl mam: lune : coodmuns Ind lbuvl hid nulmatlnlli-d ur cryuulllud um! um corllinnnlu kl pm-n. n IlIlp|9ylIllrl| nnlu ln. expi 011?: r d tnml colllracl or me 1-mllrnenr nllhe colldinoll -xpv Ind In cl...“ 14 man. »...ueus em RW2y><DlEmLDhs|JJHLo5v «we. Smnl ...n.mn n. LAIQ4 m my n. ewnmun em. m.n.n n. nFluNG vtmxl xaq In lhn Ivunl me Pmjefl ma en 1119 camp!!!» as cnnrse or me unnnnmn by an cmnunuu of eeneame men nu Colnpnny could nonihly Iuccud in ll: cormnlion mm vitw 91 um Ialluu ea In: Propel In complu: [Is mm or Ina! n was xennunaxee by on Cllunt an a of Ichndnl . glnulllu ridulldincy Illuuion nee Instr: glvmg eawn rm me Company In vvuvgamse or venmmure us argamsnnon wmch may my load m renenunnenz er me cnnnenu u there was sulvlusufi libaw [:51 Tm Company was charmnu mlanlnun vman fllaamglha Iermmamn an an we malmanh met me reason my such (srvmnahun was an account L71 clause ueune npnumlmam Valle! al all me c mnnlsyemn wldunu bdon ma. Calm quit: many uannm in fify me Iuvminilvovl enn- CI-lmanu pm-an: m clnuu u In none ohm confllllnn ma down In mu» 1: van magma junnynne (M kmnlnntlon of .u an Elaimlnls. me ounducl M the Company In Iannlnalmg me cnennanrs pursulm In damn M0! the appomlmanl mum wn ch-lly m mean 0! me mannanus mnlran no e-npneymenn wvlh me Company mat ensures :eeun|y ac nun let me dumhon no men me (am: eennaexs nl ampvuymem ' (emphasis added] 15 Based on me above finding. me Veamed cnainnen had apphed a resmcluve |nlerpve|a|>on cllha (ervmnalion clause eune Empbyrnenl Conlract smoe |he Veamed chamnen nad made a findmy (hit me provision at (Mans: 14 of me Emplaymenl cunuacx had to be sausfiad nevme me 2"-1 Reepenaenrs amplnymenl could be tervrwlated for any reason, Incmdlng redundancy. 19 However, .n eennng In hvs lindmg. lhe Iearnee Chairman nea vauee to oonsxder me express residual ngm lo Cermmale me agreement repcsed no mm pemes as envisaged m Clause 14 as mews. — --14 Tunnlnitlml Yemlmnlmn n anon wmplelron of ma lnlgnmem av when the menu wnslmcls a change at nelson due to mmmpexence or mn-performance an yourwewotflme Fmmxdoau nmeempme ns eeumer xslemu \ a by me wen! areas of sc)1edu\a wmchever vs earhet Eixhu puny mnlmllnx an. ngm In umnin n ma lppnlnlnllnl hyulvlny not me min lwo mnlllhs nofict in writing me u .: :5 sm RW=yxDuEmLansu3HLo5I «wn. smuw ...n.mn s. U... n vsfly n. nrW\n|H|Y mum: mmn VI mum v-max 20. 21. 22 23. 24. Gmmty mu nu| be pm In ynu n yuu apl In Iovlmnale yam services wan ms Compmy pm. In Ilwmmaflun or Inn P-clad ma aumeu In ma Drum: hzndma my man documsms. elc' Kernnlwasws added) Based on the abave CIauss14,|I|s clear IJ1a\ the express condmans var termmahon macs to me auwmane mmmauen Mme eonuscl in urcumsv.-mes outsme me fixed term duration Mme contract, and nolhvng precruasa me Appucanl rmm (ermmanng the 2'“ Respundenfs empbymcnl {or any ulnar vahd reasons such as mxsmndun, poor penmmanoe or, as m me msvam case‘ redundancy Therelore‘ I vvew mat by hohmg that the 2"‘ Raspondenfs Iermmalvnn could only vanmy came about by sausiymg me spacmc eenamons lislsd in Chusa 14 of ms empluymanl conlrach the Indusmal cam had oecasxaned a clear ermv or Vaw by (army to apply me appmpnaxe principles cl law which arise in mnneclxon war: a claim at redundancy. Further‘ I am 07 the view that the lnduslnal Court, by ounflnlng Its vwew lo ms cundlhuns set out w Claus: 14 of (he amp\nymen| contract, lawled Io app\y the correct law or to ask usew me Iundamenlm queslxon as In whether a redundancy swluahon had‘ In ‘aw and VI Vad, ansen based on the cimumsvanees of |hB case. Upon perusal al me evidence produced beiove the uxausuial court, 1 find thal lhe Malaysvan Govemman| had dlrecfly suspended and placed me um Propel under review, mandaung than an stakeholders H1 Ihe LRT3 Frcqecl immemen! stringent oos| oplimwsllmn. The Malayswan Govammenls review culminated in a reslrucmnng of (he enlwe LRT3 Fmgech wmch mcmded sigmflcam changes such as an extended umehne for eompnemn from me to 2024 and a raduchcn In various deliverahles In Arkflek Akiprima Sdn Bhd v. Lllng slew Fate 5 Anor [2001] 1 MELR As: [2002] 1 ILR «so, me IndusInalCom1 considered that me enema! mnuenoe oflhe govemmenl uomd consmule a basis for retrenchmenl when n held Inler aha as iouows — ‘ wnsmsrme grounds «mme rE|renchmen| gwan by emmuyev are we met V5, vmemermeve had m lac: names a mum" m me uusmess ol the comparwdun m cwcumslances such as scamny uv raw rnituual an up :5 av :5 sm RN-yxouzmmnxuznlofiv “Nun: sum lunhnrwm .. med u my u. mum-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! lne avzrlabllny 0! WNCI1 lne running suns lazlury depends ulsuwpaan :1 warn nndar ma mar. M ma wovnmmt 4, or thing In nnoln whlcrl made n lrnaossllan to commul ma huslmsl Ixnblal a less or on rrraagra pmllu ' (emphasls added) 25 Premlsed on me almye and revlewmq lne evldence lnal has been adduced. l am dune Vlew me learned Chalrrnan lalled la adnslder mal me Appllcanrs decision |o reonganlse lls buslness operalmna was a Dona fide exemlse ln response to external loroes whlch could not be deprecaled or Ignored The Malayslan sdyernrnenl nad dlracuy suspended and revlewed me LRT3 Pmjech culmlnahng ln srgnmcanl changes m we same. specifically an exlendad llmellns lar oomplellon and reduulons Io varlaus delweranles 25 The lnduslnal Courl lalled Ia adequalely cansrder lne apprdprlale legal |esl as lo wnsmer a genulne redundancy sllualmn has ansen, and had hereby rrnsdlrecled lzsall 17! law and racl Thal ma lndusmal coun nan arrad ln fact and law and had lakan lnlo conaldar n inalavam rnauars whorl It had concluded that ma Appncam was required to omain me pannlsslan nl Praaarnna andlor MRCE-GK lo I-rmlnmn ma urvico (1! ma 2'" Raapondam. 27 on «ma lssue. naylng perused me learned cnaxrmans Award, he nas come to me lallawing llndlngs: - 1:3) ay making Ihls slalemerll me Campirly nannally cnrluadlx that n .5 human by me canflmons lald dawn VI me appomlmenl letter dared me as me and ma lmnnlry cl Flrlanoa maul: release Now: r nowhere lnuna slrucllovlfrlml the Cllenllurlhe casl Opvflmlsal n are». ay ma ulalayalnr. Guvlmmlnl van that any lnnmeum var lne company In Iumlinalu any of ma kly aaraannal. "ll Cumplny was also mx able to show «nus cenn any such Ilulruchnnl mun cm clsarn orEmployIr|h.I| purm n had bun ob ad for ma bumllullon of any :0 [Is employee. rn runs century tn ma my wndlllon lmpo d ay lhl Emmy-r aa mi ln me lelmera aaauinun-nxdaud ns.nI.znIs. n ms absence nl any lnauucuon (ram ma Ellinl or Emplnylr u anylaagad ln ma mm olaapolnnnnrn damd nuuzola on ma snannaa to um um al kty pllsonml wnhoul any war wflllen approval will run comrny me 16 9! x5 srn RW:y><DIEmLDhxu1HLo5I «nu. s.nn nuvlhnrwm a. med m my r... nflmnaflly sum. dnuuvlanl y. .nuna Wm! 1:: nu: mm M lppnlnlmnnl «mm aa.na.2o1e ind clnuse u aflhe uppolnlmnnl mm at on cuvnnnu - (emphasis added) 23 Based an one above Award of me learned Cnawnan. «ms cmm vnews Ina! me lnduslnal Court had made an error when wt had consumed \ha| based an the terms or me Vsuer 01 appmmmem as helween me Apphcam, Prassrana and MRCEVGK. clear mslruclinns andluv permlssxon had Ia be gwen la the Apphcanl nevuve m wmd vahdw dwsrmss me 2"“ Respondent 29. 1 am e! me mew that the wearned Chairman‘: nnamgs on «ms Issue are pervevse and enuneaus m law and m (am because: - 29.1 Any alleged ncn—ccmphanr:e mm the provlsxons 01 me agreement between me Apphclnl, Prasarana, and MRCBVGK has no beanng whatsoever on me que as m wneme: a buna flde redundancy suuauon nas ansen 29 2 There 15 newher any emphzymem nor any con|rac\ua\ rexamnsnrp baxween me 2M Rapondem and Prasarana and/or MRCB-GK, and lherelore the absence (:1 any appmva\ or pervrussnen fmm Chase emilles does not vinale the vahdwly Many veksnchment by the Appficanl. so runner, nms ceun \s of me new that even :1 (here Is any such non- compliance‘ vf Itexwsled, m wumd be a canlracluen mspme between me Applncam. Fuasayana and/ov NRCB-GK, and mus, me Induslnm caun had mlsdileaed nsew wn law by hmdvng that me terms of me agreement be\ween the Appncam, Frasarana, and MRCB—GK were delerrmnahve anne empmyrnenk relanonsmp belween me Apphcanl and me 2"“ Responuem. 11. Th! Indllllrial Court and In Iolml oi II (I whln I! found that the :05! review carriad out by (hi Manayuan Government had nofi yal hlln mad: on III! dill of Illmlnatlon 01 (III 2"‘ RIl|'JDrIdll1l’I nrvlcm wh Iby (Ila Indul Cour! d In take into nccnunt lhc comonls of me Inlslry of Finam:|'s puss nluu filled 12.7.2|‘lII announcing lhl VflY|D|l5 mnlurn I0 rlducl In! con! Ind mom of tho LRT3 FFOJOG1. v... 17 M 25 m Rwzymuzmmnmznlofiv «wn. snn ...n.mn n. U... a may n. nflmnnflly -mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa v-max e. we lnduslnal Court enred n fact wilulu n lallad Io nlvn due consldlrallolu to tho ml nl Ind vndlspuled laols, sooellloally nu mum" to nude. nu ml and wow onn. um wmlecl announced by the Mlnlsny of Flnnnco had ruullld m a Vlflnctloll In lhl App||=-Int‘: personllol rcqlllrvlvlonll. 3|. Hlnd (hat the lnduslrlal Court had mlsdlrecled use}! when concluded lha| the cosl VGVISW axerclse had not laken place at lhe llme the 2"’ Respondent‘: servloe was lermlnated and lalled Ia corlslder lne measures annevnoed by me Malays.-an eevernmenl aocordlng lo lhe out review exemlse 32. I find the finding of the learned Challman on (his lssue Is agalllsl and/or contrary to he Malaysian GmIarnn1erIl's awn pless release daled 12 7 ma‘ vvrnen makes expressly clear we ouleome or us oosl opllmlsalicrl exerclse ln lms respect. me Mlrllslry ol Flnanoe had stand lnler Illa as [allows lrl the sand prass lvlenss. - me nnal lolal cosl M me man Fn»ec1 IS reduced by 47% llum RMCH es ollon ro amass bllllorl vavng Malaysans a lolal el RM15 oz olllon vnlseasx wlll lnclmt pmilcxcosls lncludmg bul not lvnnad no Walk Fackagl Comlacls lWPEsy land Bmulsllmn. pmpcl mznagemem conaulunoy fun‘ opemlnorlzl and overnead eosls. as well as lnlalesl durlng mnsllumlun r (emphasls added) (See Enclosurn 3 ol plan 2:1 _ 261) 33. The Minlslry lurlner nlgnllgnls eaveral key respecls ln wnlen lne costs ler lhe LRT3 Pmled had been ophmlsed, lncludmg reduorng me seooe ellne pmlecl, exlendlng lne eumplellan Ilmehne by four addrlronal yeera and convemng lne plulecl lrom a PDF model no a fixed onoe model :4. This IS luflher corroboraled oy me undispu|ed laol lnal wmle me Malayslen Government nad announoed me oonvalslan ol lhe LRT3 Project llorn me FDP model lo lne fixed onoe model‘ lne aolual novallon agreernenl was only slgrled on 22.2.2u1e 35 I find lnal lne sleps which followed me Malayslarl Governmenrs press release were clearly lakerl lo lmplemsnl declslcns lnal had already been made‘ oonlrary lo we lnduslnal couns findlrlg man an. n of X5 am RW=yxDlEmLunsll.l1HLo5ll «we. Smnl luvlhnrwm a. d... a mm he anvn.l-v MW: dnuavlml v. nFluNa penal 1ne ac|ua\ ocsn opnnnnsannon exermse nan also no\ naken place an me hme nna cnanrnams were Iamuna|ed' as The Indusnnan Cam ansa canned to consider Ihe malenal eneans or me changes announced Dy me Malaysnan Govamnnenn vnde nna press Mlesse dated 12 7 2012‘ m yaflicular, "15 reduction II’! the scale 0! nne mm Pmnecn and an exnension annne pmject hmshnswhere nna Applncam was reqmred no do ness wnrk over a longer period on nnns. 37 More irnponannny, I find man me 7"’ Responaenn had oornoaded ounng nne prooeeding belore nna nnoosnnan caunn nnan ms changes annuunaau oy nne Mnnnslry an Fmance nn July 2013 would noqnma resnruclunng by me Appnicann ‘[5] o nsnnagaan no you mm nmongnolhnrlhnngs axlandmg nn. smaon daadlms by new addnbonal years would nnanananny anvacn ma namre. smpe ano nnlemnly M wnvk Involved Maannng no say Balm-e lhns ma Cumuiny waum luv: :2. -xuacn-a na mun an as oannvanaones by 2020 mwn had nnnnnn 2u24m mean essennally nn. um: [M lvuenaalrverablls se wurk would be mom splat! nu! Agvse or dnsagraa” A ween} n u <2 mm on an onns cnangss announcsd byxhe Mnn-nrym Fmanoen hom ma reduomn nnwsnsnonna vavnous changes no ms wupo oilhu LRT3 Frunscl annn ma levuad umalnna n pu| Ma ymn man. nn orderlo aowmmodzlz lhme charwes me Company was rammed In masses: Ind mllruclure Mi ananc womng on ma Pvuped Agree urdIsagru7 A var as. aasaa on nne aornnssnon Mine 2"“ Respondent above. me Inannsnnan courn had committed a sanaus error m fan ay falling no mnslder nns subsvannnve nrnuacn cl nna cnanges announced by nna Manaysnan Government on n2.7.2ons ano suhssquemly nmplemeruad by me Applncanln Prasarana and MRCB-GK. and wnanner ma sama wound gnve nse no a bone fide redundancy snnnanion. 39 Indeed‘ m savaran cases. such as‘ camr Pu an no Sdn and v. Sharmirni Devil [2000] I MELR 1:2; man) I ILR 302. me Induslnal Conn nas tuned with approval ma vouawnng passage nonn Harvey on |nduMrna\Cour1(Vo1 1)v Fur 15 ans sm amymznnonmannasu “Nana sanun navnhnrwm a. met! a my n... anmnauly am. flnunmnl n. mum v-man 1». sumvlest Ivan of nflundulcy mm wmn ms mmnsss mm. mm vmuloyt - of whunvn mm. n my a. um um. :- . nc umn, and mm Business mas mm umnlay-Ix buuuu :1 II opnmllny will! 3 nduud outrun. sun ms: "nu nul be so. Yheve can just as wan be . mdundarvcy svluahcn when: we rmmaaa acmevas the same oreveu an mueasefl nuv.nu| mm leweremplvyees. ma can come about Ihlough mechumulmn av cnmpulnnulmn m ‘I111 by mcreasad aomsvmy (empnass added) 40. Funhar, me mgr. Cuurl m we case at Slupllln Bong V. FOB (M Sdn Bhd & Anor [1999] 5 MLRH 107; mm 3 MLJ 411heldlha|- [<21 im nollm lnwihnl ndundlncy In mun» orwam no Ionuu Ridundincy silulfinnx an vmnm the nusnnsss requires kwlr Imploylu at whmwrklnd mmsy on lndusmm Duspulzsl (emphasis added) 41 Gwen the above. «ms com vs nf me view (ha| by lalhng lo lake mlo oansmeramn me matenai xmpscl of me cas1 remew exemse announced by me Malaysian Govemmenl, the wmpugned Awavd cnnlzins malena\ mfirmmes of facl and law, m mac n «ans |o adequately apprecvale lha| as a resuh a1 me sa exercwse, wmcn resmled m an exxsnaaa deadlme and a redudmn us (he scope 01 me LRT3 Projecl. ma Anphcanl reqmred lewer employees to do me work 01012 2"’ Responaam. 42 Adam to (haL I a\so find that not omy am the Inausmal coun reach an vrauanal conclusmn when n new mm me east review exemsa announced was me grass release had ya! la occur ax me me me 2"“ Respundenrs serwces were lermmated, but u had a\su failed m consider the actual effed at the exemss on me LRT3 Prujecl. and specmcaHy me Appncanrs wmldome reqmremenls m relahan (helelo L Thl|ndIlSfriI|CDuI1Irrldln tumsofllcls wllun If Ind Ia givl due cons: eration in (III III-Illrlll fink ihat althnugll some of Ike luncllons and tasks of mo 2" Rnpondonl as a Resident Eng car did not nap. (hi chlngu la (III worn and complullon data av me LRT3 Project means that lhu suid funnlons and tasks could be pmmm-a by me nmalnlng Rosldunl Englnnl and accordingly, il 5! nod disputed lhll fill lwo positions van m 9! 15 am Rwzyxouzmmnmznmfiv «ma. am nmhnrwm s. U... w my s. mm-y am. dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! sum nnmuum TINGGI mum on KUALA LUIIPUR mum WILAVAH pznszxurum xunu LUMPUR, muvsm (auucuw KUASA-KUASA mus) rzmononm um K ssmuuu KEHM mu no wuszvmvmzu Dllam parka/a Award Mahkamah Fvrusahaan Na 334 Tahun 2:221 bvnankh 2242021 den auenma clan Pemnmn um 2912021 damn Kes Minksmih Pevusahaan Nu A/44455/19 Dan Dalam perkara mm plmmmvvan umuk Fgnntah Cenmran Dan oaxam Derkam Sekxynn 2o Akla Pemubullgin Pemsahaan 1967 Dan Dawn pemara menoenau Jaduav 1, ma Mammn Kahnbdnun «sea Dun Dzlam Derkava Aturan 53 Kaedarvkaedah Mahkimah zmz ANTARA Muss cumuusan and Femomn DAN 1 Mlhlumah Puusahaan Mllaylla 2. momma Nun am Naslr Mnhlmafl Reapumwkesponaen Heard mgslner mu /Duiengar bersama v... 1 .7: :5 sm Rwzyxouzmmnstuznlofiv «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! (including the ielevanl functions and (salts) were combined and nervomied by a eingie Resident Engln a. The Industrial Courl emd whnn it t led to give due consideration to in. material fact that the 4. cllon pvocoaa IAIIII by (III Appllizanl wu fair and nporop blclun an the empioyees were engaged on fixed nemi contracts‘ trio nssessmenl was conducted by me ctii Resident Englnur and the e action w: I: d en the mu and iunctione aiiectod by the reduced scorn oitrie LRT3 Pmjacl. 43 in this respect. iririd that the 1“ Respondeniiaiied to appreciate |ha\ me piincipie oi ‘Last in, First om (LIFO) was oi iimiied utility in trie insient ease, as all Resident Engineeis iinciuaing the 2"“ Respondent) were engaged on simiiar fixed-term contracts 4:: Far inis isasnrie I VIEW inai it was appiopnete ior the Anphnanl to proceed. as it did, by assessing ine overall penonnanoe oi all Residenl Engineers engaged in me LRT3 Pioieci and pieaicaiing iie decision based on its assessment 45 in Sarawak siieii Bhd v. Ismail sanat 5 075 [m2] 1 MELR mi [2002] 2 [LR 371,015 ‘fIdU§‘VIEICOU|18CC€Dl8d a departure ham lhs UFO Drlnclple in a retrenchment exercise observing Inter aiia as IDIVOWS - -ine mun agiees wim ine Subfllissmn oi ieeinad couneei ioi me oompany on me non-vigbfifly oi the UFO pnncioie mie are amnln aulltorllins iiiiei dlcidl man an Implulyif may Ior sound and in main depart [mm sltlclly applying in. use pmicipie. Such a. nun: an inn vied on me bull oi in. .aiiity, cnmpnllbllllyi suinbilny and emciency oi Jnninl omc-is who am mu rd in pimi-once la mmr eeniei eivicm me lo in. metric lnhensts omi umployur.” (emphasis adaadi 46 Likewise, in Ahmld Marxukl hln Abdul Rank v. coicom Networks sun and [2013] MELRIJ zou me Indusinai Cnurl observed as ioiiows: - v... )1 in 2; IN RW=y><DiEmLmisu1HLo5I “Nana s.n.i inmhnrwm be ii... M may i... nrwiriaflly siiii. dnuumril VII aF\uNG Wm! 47 4a 49 50 5|. 52 ‘Ill me absence al dnuble standard or nesrrss, me calm r... In: ml: Ia plly In (M uunrrlem pres. mpleryud eyme company lempnasrs added) In mwleu Packard (M) Sdn aha v. Thangasamy arewn Grunlyulham noon] 1 MELR 1l2;[200D]1ILR198,|helrldusInal Court held as lellews. » ‘In reel oemeo uses shuw that ll ls me Implnyu who r. on ludgu ul me -rrrployu-s poflovmlnnu me me llllpluyul has no clvlalcn hm to accent Ihis jrmgrrrem rm ecnplnyel who nullnnnd mo uvnulnl mm onlvln mew mu M Ma mm mm. no-.~ lerhphasrs added) Based on the above. I find that the lndus1rlaI Court erred ln finding mat me Appllcanl was ohllgaled II.) rnlorm me 2- Respormeru abnm the ippralsal and the reason lheraof, and the (allure Ia du so rendered me appralsal male fldes The findlngs ol me lnduslnal courr are clearly rn mnfllcl wlzh eslaolrsneo lnduslrlal lurlsprudence, whroh has held |haI lhere ls no requlremehr lo na|lfy employees at me selecuon process or ID corroucl appralsals personally mm me employees Funlrer, me lnduslvlal Ccun ccmmllled e sennus error of can by determinlng lhal l| was lrlcumben| upon lhe Appllcanl (0 Lake sepemle sleps lo address me 2m Responderrrs perlormanoe, when your perlormenoe was never rhe basls luv me 2"“ Respondenrs ursmlssal The lnouslnal Court also lalled lo appreclale that the cmerla employed oy Ihe Applrcerrr, In wl|, assessmg lhe Resldenl Erlglneels‘ respective yeriorrnancasl and lelrmg mlo wnslderatlcn oomplelrrls vlssawrs me 2" Respenoenrs oerlorrrrenoe were a relevanl mener lor lhe Applleml lo lake lrllo cnnslderallon ln seleclmg which slalllo relrench lrom lhe LRT3 Prolecl, and «ms ls sepemle and dlsllhcl lrom a (ermlnauon for poor perlormanoe. Further, the lrlfluslnll Court had entirely lgrlored Ihe Anpllcanfs oomparelive organrselron charls, Whlch had reflected the mnsolldallon ol several posmons and me rumoval cl cerlaln fBSDOVVSlDl\Y|IESl whlch were taken over by MRCB~GK e... n n? 15 m Rwzymrzmmhmznlofiv “None Smul luvlhnrwm .. med e may r... nflmnullly mm. mm. VI nFluNa Wm! 53 Added lo lnal, l find lhal the lnduslrial courl did nol address me clearly relevanl lac: (hall under me Aonlicanrs new organisation charts. lne ‘Quality Assurance no longer exisleo, moreolleli conlemporaneous mmmunlcalluns belweeri lne Aoolioam and MRCB-GK Idnher eanrirrned lnal lne ‘fiuallly ;e.eurenoe' Iunclmn would be MRCEGK responsibility. 54. Slml|arly,(helndusIniaICoul1 did nol address the fact mat the 0|’!!! Residenl Engineer roles were consolidated, for examplai whereas there had previously been lwo Resident Engineer (M&E) rolee rnese nad subsequsnlly neen Combined inlo a single posiliori. conclusion 55 Fremised on me reasons given above, l am oi lne View lnal lne lnddslnal courl s findings aswnlainad in me impugned Award were marred by rrialerial errors ofracl and law. 55 rrie leanied clieirmen oi lrie lndusmel Caurl nad occasioned a luridamenlal ermr wnen he construed me lerms oi me 2"“ Respondenls employment mnlract to mean man his employment could only oe lerrninaled pursl.lnrl| lo lne lnree express coridilions slaled (herein and for no other reason including redundancy 57 The lndnslrinl ceurn error was iimner compounded wnen ii lunlier concluded that me conlraclual lenris between the Applioanii MRCB- GK and Pi-asarana dlveclly alleoled the Aoplicarirs powerio dismiss ils employees. 55 The Industrial ooun occasioned ldruier senoos errors o1 fad and law wneri ll oendluded lnsl ine eosi reyiew exercise oy lne Malaysian Goyernrnenl nad nolyel been implernenled as in me lime o1 lrie 2” Rspondenrs dismissal, wnereoy I! lied lailed lo properly aooreeiaie the press release oy lne Minielry oi Finance dared ‘2n7»2m8i and riad iurlnerniore leiled lo lake lnlo considerelon lrie subslanllve efiects oi the changes announoed by the Malaysian eoirerrinieni lo the LRT3 Proiecl Fun 1: ml 15 rn RWIyRDiEmLnnsI.l1HLo5I “Nair Smll luvlhnrwlll r. in... e my in. nflnlnullly MIMI flnuavlml vn .rinne WVM 59 Funhen me Industrial ooun erred in M appreuauon and applvcamcn ml the selection cmsna adoplad by (he Appllcarn IVI smectlng me 2"“ Respondent for redundancy, whemnn me mauscnsl Cnurl had applied the reqmremenls for msnussal an the grounds 01 poor pednnnance‘ wmch are mapphrable and e\evanI to ma Ins|anl rams so Pvermsed on me aloresam reasons, I am 0! me view man me decnsxon onne mduscnal Cowl ws lainled wnh the error oflsw and/or mauanamy and/or unreasonatfleness wmch wanant me cunal mlsvvenhon av this Court. in. As such. \ allowed the Appllcanfs applicahnn lnr wdmizl rm/new m JR 268, JR 269. JR 270 and JR 271 C051 cl RM 1,500.00 wnn aHocaml to be paid Dy me 2* Respondent m JR 265, JR 259‘ JR 270 and JR 271 In the Aunncam Dated: ['5 January 21:24 Ahmad Kamal hm Md snama Judge High Conn Kua\a Lumpur v... u M 2; m RWIyxDuEmLansIJJHLo5I «mm. smuw lunhnrwm .. U... n may he nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! counsels Far the Appflcanl. am 1 Thavalmgam (Enmk David Tan Sang Keat wnh mm) Teluan T. Thavalmgam ea. Co Peguambela flan Peguamcara sums K-341‘ ms 3‘ B\oK K. Na 2, Jalan suuans. semis Mon| Knara‘ 50480 Kua\a Lumnur. Fm me 2" Respondent: Enclk Mohammad Am bm Shanpufldnn Teluan Razi1.Abdu\A1Iz 5 Partners Peguambela den Feguamcara 33-3 .3. am am Fkmn Bmck 3‘ Megan Avenue 1, No, :99, Jalan Tun Razak. some Kuala Lumpur (Ru; Tuan- 43951/19/RAAP/MASlU—hak|mj ..ms.us m Rwzyxouzmmnsuznlofiv «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max mum MAHKAMAN nusm DMLAVA nu KUALA LUIIPUR mum wnuvm wsnssxumm KLIALA LUIGPUR. muvau (amuzunu KuAsu<uAsA sous) Pzrwonomm umux ssmuuu KEHAKIMAN MD M gs.2mm2u21 mm parkara Award Mankamah Plrusahaan Na s32 ram 202: benankh 2242021 am mtsvlma men Femohon pads 194202! awn Kai Mahkzmah Ferusahaan Na A/A4486/19‘ nan Dalam pemara sualu ne/mahanan unluk Permian Calxamru Dan Damn perkara Seksyen 2:: Am Pemubungan Fem:-Ihiun I951‘ Dan Dalam nelkara manuenau Jeans‘ 1‘ Am Mahkamah Kehakvman 1964. Dan Dawn parkara Aluran 53 Ksedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA Muss Cansulxsdn ans Pemohnn am 4. Mahkamah Pcmnhun why... 2 mum: B-hurl um Ibrlhlm Rnspundaniespnnflnn me-ms sm Rwzyxouzmmnmznmfiv «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Judgment Inlmduclion t The Applicant nad med judicial review applillltan Na WA—252B8r G7/2021 (JR 283). ND.: WA-25»269»D7/2021 (JR 28D), Nu . WA-25- 270-07/2021 (.|R27o) and No WA—25-271-07/2021 (JR 211) under order 5: oi tne Rutes at court zotz (RDC) ior amongst otners. an Order 07 Certtorart to quash the Induslnnt Court Awards N0 835 of 2021, No 531 012021, No: 834 1752021 and ND 832 of 2021 da|ed 22.4 2021 respec' Vy 2 Aitnoudrt lhese annitceimns emanate irorn separate Awards at ttte industrial court, they an relate to wnat are essentially tdenttcat lens. tndaad, att iour cases were heard lagelhevin tne proceedings oeiore tne tndtrstrtei Conn, and me oontents oi tne Awards trtentsetves are suostanttvety rdenttoat 3 In the above Award, tne First Respondent (lndunrlal court) new that the Second Respondent tn JR 268, JR 259, JR 270 and JR 271 nad been dtsmtssed by the Apotrcantwttttout tust cause and excuse 4 JR 26% JR 270 and JR 271 are fixed to be heard together with this JR 268. 5. Alter the hearing I allowed me Applicants appttoations tn JR 268, JR 259. JR 270 and JR 271 i win now set out the grounds at my judgment Background Fact! 6, Tne Iecte Ieadtng to ma mtng 01.“? 268. JR 269, JR 270 and JR 271 are atrrtost tdenttcat and are adopted wttn andlar without modificauon from the parties’ written submissions and can be summarized as Ioltws: - 61 Tne Applicant ts a firm ot oonsuntng engineers and was appolnlsd by Prasarana Malaysia aarnad (Puuronn) to went on me Light Rail Transit Line 3 (western corrtdort Page 5 ms rn RW:yRDtEntLurtsA.iJHLo5I “None s.n.t luvthnrwm .. .r..a a may t... nflmnnttly mtmn dnuavtml VI nFtuNfl vtmxt l=rolecl (the um Prolm). A| lns malanal lama, MRCE- George Kent Sdn Ehd (IIRCB-GK or (he l.hen—PDFj was appolnled as me ‘Prolecl Dellvery Partner rasporlslble lorlhe management and supervlslarl of the LRT 3 Pmled’, albell the uluma|e owner ol Ihe LRT3 Fralecl was and ls the Malayslan Gnvernmenl, whlch malrllalned final aulhonxy over the same a.2 The 2"‘ Rsspondanl was specifically employed lo work on me slle cl lns LRT3 Prolool as a Resrdenl Englnaev. Llghl Hall Transll 3 —Wes1em corndor, lor a cwoyeav rlxed penod lrorn 3.7 zmv unlll 30 6.2019, wrm a oasrc salary ol RM le.oou.oo par rnonln 5.3. Follawlng me 14*" Geneml Electlons on 9.5.2015. me then- naw Malayslsn Gavemmarn lmplemanlad a revlew or all Isrgs» scale prolecls. mcluding the LRT3 Prolscl 5 4 MRCB-GK nsd rnslmaad |he Aoolrcanl [as well as all omar sub-conlractors lnvolved In me LRT3 Pmlecl) lo nold all reviews and approvals lor snoo drawrngs and submsslons and no stop overlime and sum umy one work as Thereafler. mere was an announcement lay me Mlnlstry ol Flnanee on 12.7.2013 lnax, wnrle lne LRT3 l=ro,ec1 would canllnue, there would be slgnlficanl changes made. lnoludlng rnleralla me Iollawlng 7 (a) the llmelme lor wmplellon of ms LRT3 Pmjecl was revlsed fram 2n2lJ to 2024. (bl more would be a naduclron In one overall oonslruollon size and design oi lne LRT [ram depot and LRT svalions due lo me change lvom 42 sets or scar lrarns lo 22 sels ora- canralns. and lol me oonslruchon omve slallons would be shelved and me 2km underground tunnel and underground stauan at Persraran Hisnammuddrn, snarl Alarn would be canoellad v... ; ans m Rwzyxorzmmnxuznlofill “None Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. o... w my r... nflmnullly mum: dnuavlml w. .nuna Wm! 5 6 The above cnanges eflecfively enrauea slgmficanl changes to and an overau reduclxm m scape, whereby me LRT3 Prorecn was changed mm a Prqecx Dclwary Farmer model ha a fixed pnce (Le. turnkey or ‘Design and Bum‘) contram 6 7 The various contractors mvmvad m the LRT3 PNJBCI ware Informed of the cos| re-new exercwse mvowing the Mvuslry er Finance we letters dated 2 7 2619 and 9.7.2018‘ whereby more aspects 0! me LRT3 Pmrect warn DIAI on hold or ummad enurely. venous rneenngs were also hem mn MRCE~GK w drscuss the ws| 0plimIsE|IDrI exemse, mcludmg mler aha Ihe ormssmn with: 51x Smllons. a.e. Around October zms, me anecme was given by MRCB»GK to oo\|o<;live\y mslmclure (ha LRT3 Frayed orgarusafion Chan and sue supemsron staff to supper! the new “Design and Build’ rnouer. ms meant me Apphcanfs organrsauon, wgexher vntn me other uexaneu Des-gn cone-man: mu noes) were expecied |o work with MRCBGK mm rewer s\af1 m/era“. s 9 Based on an 01 the above. the Avphcant ennuumed a revrew ohls szamng needs and reorganized the teams‘ where among other «rungs, me Me MAE‘ neanu were merged, and me ouamy Assurance‘ mncuon was transferred rmrn me Apphcam |u MRCBGK 61D.Funher and In add on to |he above, mere had been sugnincanx aerays In payment rrorn Mxcaeokr when were suosxannal rn namre and had eenousry slrarnad me Applicant‘: resources These delays nau amounted to saveml rnunens over a srgnmcann Ienglh or lime, and had prompled the Apphcant |o rngnngm to MRCE~GK |he extreme ermeumes m paying sva« assrgnea lo the LRT3 Project on mu Iple oocasmns. and were even repcrled m me news 611. The Apphcanl had cm of necessny Immemerlled a salary dalerment scnerne (or aw staff eammg above RM 5,000 on a month‘ sramng m as reuer dated 2132013 |e an sum as lallaws - ‘Ruennoe Vs made to mnlnwn nan melting on me 22 June mm and 21 Auwusx zara ;..nam rn RW=w<DuErnLan:u1HLo5I “Nana a.n.r lunhnrwm s. H... a my r... annnn-y am. dnuamnl VI mum war As dlscuued and agreed we nereoy wrifivm mat as a result oi curlan|markelm:idl\luri1 and ine deraun in Acmdulad Dlymlritl by our nrerer wants tria manaoenienr has In aitarna we out to lmplsmanla salary aelelmem exarsiseidrstart earning more tnan am: am a nrenin ‘ 512 Flowing lrnrn all oi trie above‘ lfl order to restructure its operations lollowino the cost-reduction directives of tne Malaysian Government and to meet the revtsed sodpe ol tne LRT3 vroiecti trie Applicant was necessarily required to reoonsldertts manpower requirements 613 Prernired on me loregolng, tne Applicants crriel Reside-it Engineer had assessed tne uanous employees under nie purview. and tne venous teams were restnrolured oased on lrie eliangas to the LRY3 Project 514 As a result, Slgnlficam changes were made‘ Including me merging of oorri Mes rearns into one and me lransfer of Quality Aesuranoe respdnsitaillties lronr the Applicant (under the PDP niodel) Io MRCB-GK [under me Design and Euild‘ rnedelt consequently, ten no) employees were lotmd to be redundant including 01:2" Respondent is 15 Not long after inst, lrie Apptroant had by way or a letter daled 29 3.2015 proceeded to lerrninete the 2“ Respondent lrorn his employment eilectrve on 3l.iu zoia, due to the primary reason trier the MRCE—GK lclient) has rnstmeled tne Aoolieantto partially rrold oertein ponions oirtie Projacl as part or tne Protect‘: cos! optirnizatron Semis: by the Malaysian soveninienr. 5 ls Dissatisfied with the termination, the 2"“ Respondent. togstrier witrt three other aflecled employees, trad lhereafler med a represerilalton o1 unlawful dismissal at me Industrial Rslalinns Department under seuion 20 or the Industrial Relations Act 1967, wnlon was trtereaiter relerred to me Industrial court by tne Honourable Minister M Human Resources lor adiudication. 6.17 Ferlmanllyi me 2"‘ Respondent‘: pleaded case was trier there was no genuine redundancy undenying trie decision to terminate ms services‘ whereby his positions and lunctions mucus ru RWIyt<DtEmLarisIJJHLd5I “None s.ii.i luvlhnrwm is. u... a may i... aiirin.ii-r MIMI flnuavlml VI .riuno Wm! were stm tn extslenue Moreover, he asserted that me Apptrcant was not undergoing any nnanctat dtmountes wntcn requrred that ne he retrencned 5 Is. wrtn the agreement of all paruest all tour cases were neerd |oge|hev were tne tndustnat oeurt. 5.19. The tndustnal Conn subsequently proceeded to hand down tne tmpugned Award deted 22.4 2021 tmtdtrrg |hat Inc 2"” Respondent had been dtsmlssed wilhoul just cause or excuse and ordered tne Apphcanl |o paytne 2"‘ Respondenta hate: 0! RM moon on in back wages 5.20. The Appllcam. being dtssatisfied wttn tne tmpugned Award, Ihevsafler Nari the Instant appfinaltcn for judicial review, seekmg the wrtal inlervanhun Oflhls Honourable COLIN The grounds for just ‘II rvvlnw 7. Based on tne 5la|emenL tne Apphcanl seeks to cneuenqe the rndustriat court dectston based on the following grounds: - ‘M The! ma lnduslnal Conn had erred In {an and law when it rnrsapptted tne Iegat pnnctples germane lo redundancy and relmnchmam; specmcauyt when it erroneousty aonuuded tnat tne 2"'= Respondent‘: employment contract eeutd only be valtdly Iermmaled fulluwing tne edrnptetrun or tennmatran at the LRT3 Fmjacl‘ 7 2 ThalII1e|ndus(rIa|COIm nad erved In tact and taw when rt had cnnduded tnat a redundancy slluahon could nnly ans: upon the cancallslton or r we 0! the LRT3 Project: 7 3 That the tndustnat Conn had erred In tact and law and had taken rntn cansrderatuon trrelevent matters wnen tl had oancluded mat tne Anphcanl was requved to obtain the permrssron ul Presarana end/or MRCEVGK to temnnate the servtce oi the 2“ Rasvnndent »..u.,ru rn RW=yxDuEntLansIJ1HLo5I “Nate s.n.t luvthnrwm r. u... e my r... nrwtnuflly MIMI dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 7.4 The indusuriai court erred in Ierms or facts wnen n icund inai me ccsi review camed oul by me Maiaysran Government nad ndi yet been made an ine dale oi lerrmnahon 01 me 2"“ Respondents SBNIDG, whereby the indusinei cdun iaiied lo |ake mlo aoeouni me conienis oi ine Ministry 0! Finances press release daied 127 2015 announcing the various measures to reduce me casl and scope otme LRT3 Proieci: The lndusilial coun erred in fact when il iaiied to give due oonsiderallnri mine rnaienai and undispuied vests, speafically me measures to reduce me cost and scope oi the LRT3 Pmied announced by the Ministry on Finance, which had resuiied In a vedualon in me Applicanfs pereonnei requirernenis: 76 Tne indusirial Courl erred in terms oflacts when ii med (0 give due aonsideralion Io Ihe malenal fact mat aiincugn some cnne hmclmns and Iasks mine 2" Respondenl as a Residwil Engirieerdld nut sippi ine change mine scope and oornpienen daia at me LRT3 Prciecl means that me said runcnons and (asks oouid be periormed by me ramaimng Residerfl Engrneer and accordingiy, ii is rim disputed that one Iwo posiucns (including me velevaril iuncncns and vasksi were combined and perionned by a eingie Residanl Engineer, and 7.7. The irrdusinai Ocurl erred wnen ii railed to give due cansidaralmn lo the maienai iaci inai ma selection process used bylhe Applicant was lairand appropnaie because an me employees were engaged on fixed ienn oonuacis. ine assessrneni was oamiucted by me cniei Resrdeni Engineer and the seiecimn was based on me areas and iunciidns aiiecied by me reduced scape oi me LRT3 Prqecl Tho uw 8 Judiaai Revrew is eneraily concerned with the decision making process where me mpugned decision is flawed on me ground oi prooedurai impropriely. me In al is ru RW=yxDiErnLnnxu1HLo5I «nu. s.n.i luvihnrwm a. met! a my r... unmnniily MIMI dnuaviml VI .nune Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-636-09/2021

PLAINTIF 1. ) S SELVARAJA A/L SANGARA PILLAI 2. ) SUBRAMANIAM A/L M SANGRAPILLAI DEFENDAN K JEYABALAN A/L KANAGARATNAM

The Court in this case struck out the Plaintiff’s claim as the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiffs did not disclose any determinable cause of action.The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant arose as a result of the purchase of property held under a Title GM1002, Lot 248, Mukim Semenyih, Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor (“ the said property”) via company called Syarikat Langkat Jaya Sdn Bhd.Based on the factors above the Court dismissed and struck out the Plaintiffs claim but with no order as to cost.

15/01/2024

YA Dato' Haji Akhtar Bin Tahir

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b18df750-8f07-402d-b6c4-7f54da9417a3&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA BAHAGIAN SIVIL NO. GUAMAN SIVIL : WA-22NCvC-636-09/2021 ANTARA 1. S SELVARAJA A/L SANGARA PILLAI 2. SUBRAMANIAM A/L M SANGRAPILLAI …PLAINTIF DAN K JEYABALAN A/L KANAGARATNAM …DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The Court in this case struck out the Plaintiff’s claim as the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiffs did not disclose any determinable cause of action 15/01/2024 15:36:56 WA-22NCvC-636-09/2021 Kand. 22 S/N UPeNsQePLUC2xH9U2pQXow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Brief facts 2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant arose as a result of the purchase of property held under a Title GM1002, Lot 248, Mukim Semenyih, Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor (“ the said property”) via company called Syarikat Langkat Jaya Sdn Bhd. 3. The Plaintiff alleges that a sum of RM4,000 was given by them to the Defendant’s father-in-law for the purchase of the property. Subsequently the property was transferred to the name of the Defendant. 4. The property was then sold by the Defendant and the other shareholders for a sum RM6.5 million on 25/2/2012. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant refused to give them a share of the proceeds for the sale of the property. 5. This prompted the Plaintiffs to file a civil suit against the Defendant vide Suit No. WA-22NCVC-227-02/2013. The High Court decided in favor of the Plaintiffs and declared that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a sum RM994,416.20 to be paid by the Defendant as a proceed of sale of the property. The Defendant appealed this decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal but failed in his appeal. 6. The Plaintiffs claim that to date the Defendant owes them RM1,381,967.67 inclusive of interest. The Plaintiffs by this suit is basically seeking this Court to enforce the said judgment of the High Court. S/N UPeNsQePLUC2xH9U2pQXow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7. After perusing the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiffs and considering the facts therein the glaring feature in the Court’s view is that there is actually no cause of action pending for determination. The cause of action had already been determined when the Plaintiffs had obtained Judgment to claim the proceeds of sale of the property according to their share. 8. The only action left for the Plaintiff to take is to enforce the Judgment. What the Plaintiff is seeking in this case can be obtained while enforcing the Judgment. Enforcement of Judgment 9. The manner a judgment could be enforced is clearly spelt out in the Rules of Court 2012 (“the rules”). Order 45(1) of the Rules stipulates as follows: 1. Enforcement of judgment or order for payment of money (O. 45 r. 1) (1) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, a judgment or order for the payment of money, not being a judgment or order for the payment of money into Court, may be enforced by one or more of the following means: (a) a writ of seizure and sale; (b) garnishee proceedings; S/N UPeNsQePLUC2xH9U2pQXow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (c) in a case in which rule 5 applies, an order of committal. (1A) In addition to rule 1(1) and subject to the provisions of these Rules, a judgment or order for the payment of money, not being a judgment or order for the payment of money into Court, may be enforced in the High Court by one or more of the following means: (a) a charging order; and (b) the appointment of a receiver. 10. In fact, in this case the Court notes from the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim the Plaintiffs have already attempted to execute the Judgement by way of garnishee proceedings. 11. The Plaintiffs can request the Court while executing the judgement to give further directions as stated under Order 45(11A) : 11A. Matters occurring after judgment: Enforcement Conference (O. 45 r. 11A) Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Court may, at any time after the commencement of any execution proceedings, of its own motion or upon S/N UPeNsQePLUC2xH9U2pQXow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal written request by any party, direct any party to those proceedings to appear before it, in order that the Court may make such order or give such direction as it thinks fit, for the just, expeditious and economical disposal of such proceedings including striking out of any writ of execution. No cause of action 12. Further in this case the Court is guided by the powers of a Court in a civil proceeding as stated under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The prerequisite of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act which confers jurisdiction upon the High Court in a civil proceeding is that there must be a cause of action. The provision is worded as follows: 1) Subject to the limitations contained in Article 128 of the Constitution the High Court shall have jurisdiction to try all civil proceedings where - (a) the cause of action arose; 13. Further Order 18 Rule 15(2) states: (2) A statement of claim shall not contain any allegation or claim in respect of a cause of action unless that cause of action is mentioned in the writ or arises from facts which are the same as, or include or form part of, facts giving rise to a cause of action so mentioned; but, subject to that, a plaintiff may in his statement of claim S/N UPeNsQePLUC2xH9U2pQXow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal alter, modify or extend any claim made by him in the endorsement of the writ without amending the endorsement. 14. From the above provision is clear that the Court has jurisdiction to hear a civil case only if there is an ascertainable cause of action. 15. In this case there is no cause of action, what the Plaintiffs are asking in this case is for the Court to inquire and to obtain an account of how the Defendant profited from the sum ordered to be paid to the Plaintiffs but not so paid. The Court is further asked to inquire into all the assets owned by the Defendant. 16. The Plaintiff are in fact using the Court as a forum to arm twisting the Defendant into paying the sum owed. This is clearly an abuse of the process of Court. Conclusion 17. Based on the factors above the Court dismissed and struck out the Plaintiffs claim but with no order as to cost. Dated: 12.1.2024 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur S/N UPeNsQePLUC2xH9U2pQXow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: Pravin Kumar Tetuan J Ganesan Tajul Anuar & Co. No. 544-2A, Batu Kompleks Batu 3, Jalan Ipoh 51200 Kuala Lumpur For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Shaline Rajan Tetuan Ganason & Company 137a-1 Indah Upc Jalan Klang Lama Batu 3/12 58000 Kuala Lumpur S/N UPeNsQePLUC2xH9U2pQXow **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-24NCC-11-06/2022

PEMOHON HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. PENCELAH 1. ) SENG HIAP GLASS SDN. BHD. 2. ) Menang Engineering Sdn Bhd 3. ) Procurement & Contracts Sdn Bhd 4. ) Rebana Maju Sdn Bhd 5. ) Magna Core Engineering Sdn Bhd 6. ) Choon Lai Plumbing Works Sdn Bhd 7. ) Perniagaan Anjung Kini Sdn. Bhd. 8. ) Master Pools Sdn Bhd 9. ) Yicon Bina Sdn Bhd 10. ) YK Aluminium Enterprise 11. ) KEJURUTERAAN ASASTERA BERHAD 1 2. ) Siow Fook Lai (berniaga sebagai peniaga tunggal atas nama perniagaan yang digelar FL OIL TRADING)

Civil procedure – leave to intervene - governed by O. 15 r. 6(2) of the ROC - a proposed intervener must show to the court that he has some interest which is directly related to the subject matter of the action and that his interest (rights or liability) will be directly affected by any order of the court.Lapsed order – whether the issue is a matter of academic and no longer relevant - the fact that the ex-parte order had lapsed per se does not prevent this court from dealing with the order - the application to set aside the ex-parte order is still relevant as it would allow the court to determine whether the ex-parte order should have been granted or otherwise at the first place.full and frank disclosure - any party applying for an ex-parte application must disclose all material facts by way of affidavit which could or would be taken into account by the judge in deciding whether to grant or not to grant the application

15/01/2024

YA Dato' Sri Shamsulbahri bin Haji Ibrahim

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5f74b80f-9011-4ce6-b2d9-ae83a3ef2d74&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ HONG XIN SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT JA-24NCC-11-06-2022.docx 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO. JA-24NCC-11-06/2022 Dalam perkara mengenai Hong Xin Construction Sdn. Bhd. Dan Dalam perkara mengenai suatu skim penyusunan dan kompromi dan yang dicadangkan di antara Hong Xin Construction Sdn. Bhd. dan Pemiutang Skim menurut Seksyen 366 Akta Syarikat 2016 Dan Mengenai Seksyen 366, 368 dan 369 Akta Syarikat 2016 Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 7, Aturan 88 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan atas bidangkuasa yang sedia ada pada Mahkamah Yang Mulia ANTARA HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD. …PEMOHON DAN 15/01/2024 10:13:56 JA-24NCC-11-06/2022 Kand. 157 S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 1. SENG HIAP GLASS SDN BHD 2. MENANG ENGINEERING SDN BHD 3. PROCUREMENT & CONTRACT SDN BHD 4. REBANA MAJU SDN BHD 5. MAGNA CORE ENGINEERING SDN BHD 6. CHOON LAI PLUMBING WORKS SDN BHD 7. PERNIAGAAN ANJUNG KINI SDN BHD 8. MASTER POOLS SDN BHD 9. YICON BINA SDN BHD 10. YK ALUMINIUM ENTERPRISE 11. KEJURUTERAAN ASASTERA BERHAD 12. SIOW FOOK LAI (berniaga sebagai peniaga tunggal atas nama perniagaan yang digelar FL OIL TRADING) …PENCELAH-PENCELAH YANG DICADANGKAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [Enclosures 22, 35, 51, 101, 102 & 103] Introduction [1] These are 6 applications filed by 12 proposed interveners as follows: (a) in Enclosure 22, the application was filed by Seng Hiap Glass Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 1”) for leave to intervene in this action and to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 which allowed Hong Xin Construction Sdn. Bhd (“Hong Xin”) pursuant to s. 366 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA”) to summon a creditors' meeting for the purpose of considering a proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement between S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Hong Xin and its scheme creditors (“ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022”); (b) in Enclosure 35, the application was filed by Menang Engineering Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 2”) and 8 other parties (Procurement & Contract Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 3”), Rebana Maju Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 4”), Magna Core Engineering Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 5”), Choon Lai Plumbing Works Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 6”), Perniagaan Anjung Kini Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 7”), Master Pools Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 8”), Yicon Bina Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 9”) and YK Aluminium Enterprise (“Proposed Intervener 10”) for the same reliefs sought by Seng Hiap Glass in Enclosure 22. For ease of reference, the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 are referred to as “Proposed Interveners 2 to 10”; (c) in Enclosure 51, the application was filed by Kejuruteraan Asatera Sdn Bhd (“Proposed Intervener 11”), also for the same reliefs sought by Seng Hiap Glass in Enclosure 22; and (d) in Enclosures 101, 102 and 103, these 3 applications were filed by Siow Fook Lai (“Proposed Intervener 12”) seeking for the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 be set aside and for the stay of the execution of order dated 12.9.2022. [2] As a brief background of facts, on 2.6.2022 Hong Xin filed an ex- parte application in this court seeking for a few reliefs inter alia that Hong S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Xin be allowed pursuant to s. 366 of the CA to summon a creditors' meeting for the purpose of considering a proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement between Hong Xin and its scheme creditors, the particulars of which were set out in the draft proposed scheme exhibited in the affidavit of Low Hui Ying filed together with the application. [3] Subsequently, on 15.6.2022, this Court granted the ex-parte application which, amongst others, allowing Hong Xin to commence a scheme meeting to consider and approve the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement within 90 days from the date of the order. In addition, this Court had also granted a restraining order pursuant to s. 368 of the CA as sought in the application (“Restraining Order”). [4] On 12.8.2022, the Proposed Intervener 1 (Seng Hiap Glass) filed an application in Enclosure 22 to intervene in this suit under O. 15 r. 6(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”) and/ or s. 368 of the CA and/ or O. 92 r. 4 of the ROC and to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022. On 26.2.2023, I allowed the Proposed Intervener 1 to intervene in this suit but I adjourned the decision on other reliefs in the Enclosure. [5] On 15.8.2022, a meeting to discuss a proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement was convened at Grand Paragon Hotel, Johor Bahru and attended by 82.8% of the total value of creditors. During the meeting, the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement was approved by 75% out of 82% of the creditors attended present and voting. S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [6] On the same day, the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 filed an application in Enclosure 35 which the reliefs in the application are similar to what were sought by the Proposed Intervener 1 in Enclosure 22. [7] Not long after, on 22.8.2022, the Proposed Intervener 11 filed a similar application in Enclosure 51. [8] Back to the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement which was approved during the scheme meeting, on 29.8.2022, Hong Xin filed an application under s. 366(3) of the CA in Enclosure 57 seeking for the court’s approval of the scheme of compromise and arrangement. [9] On 12.9.2022, this court, after having satisfied that the class of creditors was fairly represented during the scheme meeting and the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement was approved by more than 75% of the total value of creditors, allowed the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement (“execution order dated 12.9.2022”). [10] On 13.10.2022, the Proposed Intervener 12 filed 3 applications in Enclosures 101, 102 and 103 seeking inter alia that the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 be set aside and the execution order dated 12.9.2022 be stayed until the disposal of application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022. Enclosure 22 - Application by the Proposed Intervener 1 (A) Application to intervene [11] To begin with, let me deal with the application filed by the Proposed Intervener 1 in Enclosure 22 seeking for leave to intervene in this action. S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [12] It is trite that the law on adding a party to an action is governed by O. 15 r. 6(2) of the ROC. The provision reads – (2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application — (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely — (i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or (ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter. [13] In Pegang Mining Company Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors [1968] 1 LNS 96; [1969] 2 MLJ 52, the Privy Council held that a proposed intervener S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 must show to the court that he has some interest which is directly related to the subject matter of the action and that his interest (rights or liability) will be directly affected by any order of the court. [14] Back to the Proposed Intervener 1’s application to intervene, as a backdrop, by a letter of award dated 1.5.2015, Hong Xin had appointed the Proposed Intervener 1 as its subcontractor for aluminium works in a project known as “Cadangan Pembangunan Penggunaan Bercampur di PTD 216427 HSD 520197 Mukim Plentong, Johor Bahru comprising of 1 block of podium and 3 blocks of apartment for Adawan Development Sdn Bhd (“Adawan Project”)”. [15] On 14.10.2019, the Proposed Intervener 1 vide Suit No. JA-22NCC- 60-10/2019 filed a writ and statement of claim at the Johor Bahru High Court against Hong Xin for the non-payment of the works done by the former for the Adawan Project. [16] When the case came up for trial on 20.4.2021, both parties agreed to enter a consent judgment on the following terms, inter alia: (a) Hong Xin shall pay to the Proposed Intervener 1 a sum of RM2,000,000.00 on or before 31.10.2020 which the amount was already paid; (b) Hong Xin shall instruct Adawan Development Sdn Bhd (“Adawan Development”) to assign to the Proposed Intervener 1 the properties in the Adawan Project equivalent to RM2,000,000.00; and S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (c) Hong Xin shall identify the properties which are subject in the consent judgment and procure the consent of Adawan Development to assign the properties to the Proposed Intervener 1. [17] Following to the consent judgment, by a notice in writing to Adawan Development, Hong Xin assigned the said chose in action to the Proposed Intervener 1 and Adawan Development had confirmed the assignment., [18] Based on the above facts, I agree with the Proposed Intervener 1 that the company has some interest which is directly related to the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement and that interest has been directly affected by any order of the court. As such, I allow the Proposed Intervener 1 to intervene in this action. (B) Application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 (i) Whether the application is no longer relevant [19] Learned counsel for Hong Xin in objecting the Proposed Intervener 1’s application argued that the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 had lapsed at the time of the hearing of this application. As such, he submitted that the issue is a matter of academic and no longer relevant. [20] With respect, I find that such argument is untenable. The fact that the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 had lapsed per se does not prevent this court from dealing with the order. In this respect, I can do no better than to quote the view of Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA (as he then was) in RIH Services (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tanjung Tuan Hotel Sdn Bhd [2002] 3 CLJ 83, where it was stated in the following passage: S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 However, if the defendant wants to set aside the ex parte order, the defendant is at liberty to file an application for that purpose. It is at the hearing of that application that the court should decide whether to set it aside or not, if it has not lapsed. If in the meantime the ex parte order has lapsed, the court should nevertheless hear the application, not for the purpose of setting it aside or not, because it has lapsed, but for the purpose of determining whether that ex parte order should or should not have been made in the first place. This is necessary in order to determine whether damages should be awarded or not. [21] In view of the foregoing, although the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 had lapsed, I find that the application to set aside the ex-parte order is still relevant as it would allow the court to determine whether the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 should have been granted or otherwise at the first place. (ii) Whether the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 violates s. 368(6)(b) of the CA as it restrains the guarantor of Hong Xin [22] Back to the application, learned counsel for the Proposed Intervener 1 submitted that the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 must be set aside as it violates s. 368(6)(b) of the CA due to the reason it restrains among others the guarantor of Hong Xin. [23] According to the Proposed Intervener 1, the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 not only allowed Hong Xin to summon a creditors' meeting for the purpose of considering the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement but at the same time, it restrained any person including a guarantor from taking any action or proceedings against Hong Xin. This, as submitted by the Proposed Intervener 1, contravenes s. 368(6)(b) of the CA. S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [24] On this point, it is a general principle that once the court has allowed a company to undergo a restructuring exercise through a scheme of arrangement pursuant to s. 366(1) of the CA, all creditors and third parties are restrained from further proceedings in any action or proceedings against the company except by leave of the court. However, the legal immunity given to the company does not affect any guarantor of the company. S. 368(6) of the CA reads – (6) An order made by the Court under subsection (1) shall not have the effect of restraining — (a) further proceedings in any action or proceeding that should be taken against the company by the Registrar or the Securities Commission; or (b) further proceedings in any action or proceeding against any person including the guarantor of the company but does not include the company that had applied for the restraining order. [25] It is no doubt that the provisions regarding the restraining order provided by the CA are mandatory and any non-compliance of them may render the order irregular and liable to be set aside. This is fortified by the Federal Court case of Mansion Properties Sdn Bhd v. Sham Chin Yen & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ 609; [2021] 1 MLJ 527, where it was held that – Specific Statutory Requirements In Section 368(2) To (7) Of The Companies Act [50] This view is further fortified when the matter is considered in the light of other sub-sections in s. 368 of the CA. Section 368(2) to (7) of the CA imposes S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 a number of specific statutory safeguards in respect of restraining orders under s. 368(1). Among others, these include: (i) the pre-conditions for the court to grant a restraining order to a company under s. 368(1) of the CA. The court must be satisfied that there is a proposal for a scheme of arrangement, that the restraining order is necessary to enable the company and its creditors to formalise the scheme for approval, that a statement of particulars as to the affairs of the company is lodged together with the application, and that the court approves or appoints a person nominated by the majority of creditors to act as director (s. 368(2) ); (ii) the person approved or appointed by the court has the right of access to all of the company's records, and is entitled to require any information from the company as required (s. 368(3) ); (iii) unless the court otherwise orders, any disposition or acquisition of company property, other than in the ordinary course of business, made after the grant of the restraining order is void. Such an act constitutes an offence (ss. 386(4) - (7)); and (iv) where a restraining order is granted, the company shall lodge a copy thereof with the Registrar and publish a notice of the order in a widely circulated newspaper (s. 386(5)). [51] These statutory requirements are mandatory and any non-compliance may render the restraining order liable to be set aside for irregularity (see: Pelangi Airways Sdn Bhd v. Mayban Trustees Bhd (supra)). [26] In light of the above, it is axiomatic that the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 contravenes the statutory provision in s. 368(6)(b) of the CA and must be set aside. S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (iii) Whether the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement lacks bona fide and lacks of full and frank disclosure by Hong Xin [27] Another point raised by the Proposed Intervener 1 is the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement lacks bona fide and lacks of full and frank disclosure by Hong Xin. This is due to the reason that Hong Xin did not disclose the true facts in Hong Xin’s application for the scheme meeting regarding the nomination of Lee Kok Chew as the director. The Proposed Intervener 1 submitted that Hong Xin’ nomination of Lee Kok Chew as the director of Hong Xin had not been consented by the majority of the scheme creditors despite Hong Xin averred that the scheme creditors representing 59.17% of the total scheme liabilities had given the consent. [28] Upon perusal the cause papers, I find that the Proposed Intervener 1 has established that Hong Xin’s averment on the nomination of Lee Kok Chew is proven untrue. In fact, there were no consent letters from contingent creditors as averred by Hong Xin. Further, if all liabilities are calculated, the scheme creditors who gave consent are only 46.64%. Hence, I agree the Proposed Intervener 1 that the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement lacks bona fide and lacks of full and frank disclosure by Hong Xin. [29] On this note, it is trite that any party applying for an ex-parte application must disclose all material facts by way of affidavit which could or would be taken into account by the judge in deciding whether to grant or not to grant the application. In Castle Inn Sdn Bhd v. Bumiputra- Commerce Bhd Bank [2009] 2 CLJ 445, Low Hop Bing JCA when delivering decision of the court held that – S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 It is an established general rule of law that when a party makes an ex parte application to the court of any kind, he must make a full and frank disclosure of all relevant matters. This general rule applies in particular to an ex parte application for extension of the validity of a writ; and an extension can be refused on this ground alone." [30] The principles with regard to the duty of disclosure in an ex parte application have been expounded in a plethora of cases including Creative Furnishing Sdn Bhd v. Wong Koi [1989] 1 CLJ Rep 22; [1989] 2 MLJ 153, Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 239; [2004] 1 MLJ 316, Motor Sports International Ltd & Ors v. Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd [1996] 3 CLJ 483, Arthur Anderson & Co v. Interfood Sdn Bhd [2005] 2 CLJ 889; [2005] 6 MLJ 239 and, PECD Bhd & Anor v. Amtrustee Bhd & Other Appeals [2010] 1 CLJ 940, where it has been established that it is incumbent on the applicant to make frank and full disclosures of all material facts, and that failure to do so at the crucial time of making the ex parte application would invariably be fatal. [31] In the upshot, I find that the failure of Hong Xin to disclose the full and frank of the material facts would render the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 invalid and thus I allow the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 be set aside with costs. Enclosure 35 - Application by the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 (A) Application to intervene [32] In this application, the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 sought for leave to intervene in this action based on the reason that they are creditors to Hong Xin and as such they are entitled to intervene to ensure that all S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 matters in dispute in this suit would be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon. [33] As a brief backdrop, 7 of the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 namely Menang Engineering, Magna Core Engineering, Choon Lai Plumbing Works, Perniagaan Anjung Kini, Master Pools, Yicon Bina and YK Aluminium are the nominated subcontractors appointed by Hong Xin in a project known as “Cadangan Pendirian Bangunan Komersial 20 Tingkat dan 1 Tingkat Separa Bawah Yang Mengandungi (A) 25 Unit Kedai Di Tingkat Bawah (B) 50 Unit Pejabat Di Tingkat 1 Dan 2 (C) Ruang Konvensyen Di Tingkat 6 (D) 111 Bilik Hotel Bajet (Jenis A, A1, B Dan C) Di Tingkat 6, 7 Dan 8 (E) 8 Tingkat Tempat Letak Kereta Di Tingkat Podium (F) 13 Tingkat 305 Unit Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Di Podium Hingga Tingkat 19 Di Atas Lot 1259, Mukim Rawang Daerah Gombak, Selangor” (“Rawang Project”). [34] Due to the non-payment of the works done and services rendered by the above parties, their claims against Hong Xin are as follows: Name of parties Amount claimed against Hong Xin 1. Menang Engineering RM1,100,191.65 2. Magna Core Engineering RM295,011.50 3. Choon Lai Plumbing Works RM957,298.35 4. Perniagaan Anjung Kini RM616,070.56 5. Master Pools RM145,210.00 6. Yicon Bina RM459,714.36 7. YK Aluminium RM328,925.67 S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [35] Another proposed intervener i.e Procurement & Contracts (the Proposed Intervener 3) is a contractor appointed by Hong Xin for the Rawang Project. On 31.5.2022, the Proposed Intervener 3 via its solicitors sent a notice of demand to Hong Xin claiming for the payment of outstanding debt of RM624,963.90 being the tiles and sanitary wares supplied by the former. [36] For Rebana Maju (the Proposed Intervener 4), this company is the owner of the Rawang Project and had appointed Hong Xin as the main contractor for the Project. Hong Xin had sent two letters of termination of contract to the Proposed Intervener 4 on 20.4.2022 and 10.5.2022. However, the Proposed Intervener 4 averred that the termination was pre- mature and wrongful and subsequently on 1.6.2022, the Proposed Intervener 4 sent to Hong Xin a notice to refer the matter to arbitration and thus claimed for a sum of RM6,218,958.88 from Hong Xin. [37] Based on the above facts, it is no doubt that the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 are unsecured creditors of Hong Xin and this fact was even admitted by Hong Xin. Thus, I find that the admission by Hong Xin has strengthen the fact that the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 have some interest which is directly related to the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement. In Zulpadli Mohammad & Ors v. Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd [2011] 1 LNS 1853 the Court of Appeal held that – [20] The foregoing in law amounts to judicial admissions which had been made by the respondent. In this regard, we are in agreement with the decision in the case of Hu Chang Pee v Tan Sri Datuk Paduka (Dr) Ting Pek Khiing [1999] 3 MLJ 402 (subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Tan Sri Datuk Paduka (Dr) Ting Pek Khiing v Hu Chang Pee (also known as Hii Chang Pee) [2011] 6 MLJ 193; [2010] 1 LNS 1269) as follows: S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 (2) The plaintiff in entitled to rely on the defendant's affidavit filed in Suit No 22–18–96 as the basis in the present suit. What was stated by the defendant in his affidavit dated 3 December 1996 was actually an admission by him. Admission in pleadings is judicial admission and can be made the foundation of rights. Admission are admissible against the party making them. [38] Hence undeniably being the creditors to Hong Xin, the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 have some interest which is directly related to the subject matter of this action and that interest is directly affected by any order of the court. In the Federal Court case of Mansion Properties Sdn Bhd (supra) it was held that – [48] Further, where an ex parte order is granted under s. 368 of the CA, the affected creditors have the right to intervene in the proceedings and apply to set aside the order. This has been the general practice (see: PECD Bhd & Anor v. AmTrustee Bhd (supra); Sri Hartamas Development Sdn Bhd v. MBF Finance Bhd (supra)) and was indeed the practice adopted in the present appeal. It is undisputed that, having obtained the first order by way of an ex parte application, the appellant subsequently served the first order on the respondents. The respondents successfully applied to intervene in the first OS proceedings, and were given an opportunity to make representations in respect of their application to set aside the first order. In these circumstances, no prejudice or breach of natural justice could be said to have been occasioned to the respondents, by reason of the ex parte nature of the application or the omission to serve the application on the respondents before the hearing. [39] In light of the above, I have no doubt that the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 have right to intervene in this action. S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (B) Application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 [40] In this application, the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 mounted the similar grounds which raised by the Proposed Intervener 1 namely: (a) the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 contravenes s. 368(6)(b) of the CA as it restrains the guarantor of Hong Xin; and (b) the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 contravenes s. 368(2)(d) of the CA as Hong Xin’s nomination of Lee Kok Chiew as its director was not consented by the majority of Hong Xin’s creditors. [41] As I mentioned it earlier, the above reasons were raised by the Proposed Intervener 1 and I have already discussed in my judgment. I do not intend to be repetitive in my judgment. Suffice to say that I agree that the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 violates s. 368(6)(b) of the CA as it restrains the guarantor of Hong Xin and s. 368(2)(d) of the CA as Hong Xin’s nomination of Lee Kok Chiew as its director was not consented by the majority of Hong Xin creditors. Enclosure 51 – Application by the Proposed Intervener 11 (A) Application to intervene [42] In this application, Kejuruteraan Asastera (the Proposed Intervener 11) sought for leave to intervene in this action based on the reason that the company is one of Hong Xin’s creditors and as such it is entitled to intervene in this action. S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [43] As a brief background, by a letter of award dated 31.12.2018, Hong Xin had appointed the Proposed Intervener 11 as its nominated subcontractor for electrical works in the Rawang Project. [44] Since November 2021 until January 2022, the Proposed Intervener 11 had sent various letters to Hong Xin demanding the outstanding payments of the works done by the former for the Rawang Project. On 17.6.2022, the Proposed Intervener 11 submitted its final claim of RM1,313,372.58 to Hong Xin. In reply to that, Hong Xin via its letter dated 28.6.2022, informed the Proposed Intervener No. 11 that the former would include all nominated subcontractors’ final claims (including the latter’s claims) in its claims to the Proposed Intervener 4 who is the owner of the Rawang Project. [45] Based on the above facts, it is no doubt that the Proposed Intervener 11 is a creditor of Hong Xin. Being a creditor of Hong Xin, it is clear that the Proposed Intervener 11’s interest is directly affected by any order of the court. Therefore, I allow the Proposed Intervener 11’s application to intervene in this action. (B) Application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 [46] The Proposed Intervener 11’s grounds to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 are similar to what were averred by the Proposed Intervener 1 and the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10. As I have decided this issue before, I accept the grounds and agree that the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 must be set aside. Enclosures 101, 102 and 103 - Applications by Siow Fook Lai (A) Application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [47] In Enclosures 101, 102 and 103, these 3 applications were filed by Siow Fook Lai (the Proposed Intervener 12) for the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 be set aside. The reasons for the application are similar to what have been submitted by the Proposed Intervener 1, the Proposed Interveners Nos. 2 to 10 as well as the Proposed Intervener 11. Again, I agree that the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022 must be set aside. (B) Application for the stay of the execution of order dated 12.9.2022 [48] As a brief backdrop, the Proposed Intervener 12 had filed a writ and statement of claim against Hong Xin at the Johor Bahru Magistrate Court on 26.4.2022 via Suit No. JA-A72NCVC-431-06/2022 seeking for the payment of an outstanding sum of RM79,146.00. The memorandum of appearance was filed by Hong Xin on 20.5.2022. On 7.6.2022, counsel for the Proposed Intervener 12 received a call from counsel for Hong Xin requesting the latter be given an extension of time to file the statement of defence until 22.6.2022. [49] The Proposed Intervener 12 averred that at that particular time, the company was not informed by Hong Xin that the latter had filed an ex- parte application for the scheme of arrangement meeting at the high court. the Proposed Intervener 12 was only aware about this matter when the company was served with the ex-parte order dated 15.6.2022. [50] The Proposed Intervener 12 contended that Hong Xin failed to alert or draw the High Court’s attention during the hearing of Hong Xin’s ex- parte application regarding the status of on-going suit at the Magistrate Court. The Proposed Intervener 12 also submitted that the filing of the ex- S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 parte application by Hong Xin was a mala fide as to evade the payment of its debt to the former. [51] On this issue, it is an established principle that an applicant for any ex-parte application is duty bound to draw the court's attention to the material evidence or issues that may affect the court's consideration of the ex-parte application (see Bakmawar Sdn Bhd v. Malayan Banking Berhad [1991] 2 CLJ Rep 323;[1992] 1 MLJ 67). In the Court of Appeal case of Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors (supra), the Court held that (para 33 at page 328): - "It is trite law that in any ex parte application it is essential that there must be frank and fair disclosure of all relevant materials including points that may be unfavourable to an applicant” [52] I agree with learned counsel for the Proposed Intervener 12 that Hong Xin should have alerted this court of the on-going action in the magistrate court during the hearing of the ex-parte application. As adumbrated earlier the ex-parte application not only sought for an application to summon a creditors' meeting for the purpose of considering a proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement but also a restraining order against all legal suits involving Hong Xin. [53] Another issue raised by the Proposed Intervener 12 is on the classification of Low Hui Ying, Low Kok Yew and Gwee Hong Kiow who are guarantors of Hong Xin as contingent creditors. I have dealt with this issue before and it is unnecessary for me to repeat my reasons for agreeing with the averment that those individuals were wrongly classified by Hong Xin. S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Conclusion [54] In the upshot, based on the aforesaid reasons, I allow all the Proposed Interveners’ applications with costs. [55] Flowing from this decision, the order dated 12.9.2022 which allowed the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement is also set aside. Dated: 13.1.2024 -SIGNED- (SHAMSULBAHRI BIN HAJI IBRAHIM) Judge, High Court of Malaya, Johor Bahru Counsels: For the Applicant - Gan Khong Aik (together with Gwee Xi Wen); Messrs. Gan Partnership For the Proposed Intervener 1 – Theng Kai Chi; Messrs. Sodhi Chambers For the Proposed Interveners 2 to 10 - Eng Yi Wang; Messrs Armiy Rais For the Proposed Intervener 11 – Vitwat Sae Ng (together with Ng Chia How); Messrs. Vitwat Wong & Lim For the Proposed Intervener 12 – Rhubinii a/p Nantaraja; Messrs. Rhubinii Nantaraja & Co. Cases referred to:  Arthur Anderson & Co v. Interfood Sdn Bhd [2005] 2 CLJ 889; [2005] 6 MLJ 239  Bakmawar Sdn Bhd v. Malayan Banking Berhad [1991] 2 CLJ Rep 323;[1992] 1 MLJ 67 S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22  Castle Inn Sdn Bhd v. Bumiputra-Commerce Bhd Bank [2009] 2 CLJ 445,  Creative Furnishing Sdn Bhd v. Wong Koi [1989] 1 CLJ Rep 22; [1989] 2 MLJ 153,  Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 239; [2004] 1 MLJ 316  Mansion Properties Sdn Bhd v. Sham Chin Yen & Ors [2021] 1 CLJ 609; [2021] 1 MLJ 527  Motor Sports International Ltd & Ors v. Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd [1996] 3 CLJ 483,  PECD Bhd & Anor v. Amtrustee Bhd & Other Appeals [2010] 1 CLJ 940  Pegang Mining Company Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors [1968] 1 LNS 96; [1969] 2 MLJ 52  RIH Services (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tanjung Tuan Hotel Sdn Bhd [2002] 3 CLJ 83  Zulpadli Mohammad & Ors v. Bank Pertanian Malaysia Bhd [2011] 1 LNS 1853 Legislations referred to:  Companies Act 2016 – s. 368(6)  Rules of Court 2012 - O. 15 r. 6(2) S/N D7h0XxGQ5kyy2a6Do8tdA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-25-271-07/2021

PEMOHON MMSB CONSULT SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) CHAIRIL BAHARI BIN IBRAHIM

Judicial Review - The Applicant filed applications for an order of Certiorari to quash the decisions of the Industrial Court dated 22.4.2021 pursuant to a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the 2nd Respondents whereby the Industrial Court had found the 2nd Respondents had been dismissed without just cause or excuse - Whether there was genuine redundancy.

15/01/2024

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d28966a7-3268-4fd8-9851-8d18b83612d9&Inline=true

15/01/2024 15:52:27 WA-25-271-07/2021 Kand. 33 S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N p2aJ0mgy2EYUY0YuDYS2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25—271—o7/2021 Kand. 33 15/01/2n2L 15 -27 mwn rmmmm TINGGI MALAVA nu mun LDIIPUR mum wnuvm Psnssxurum xum umpun. muvsu Aammum KuAsA.xuAsA mus» wzmonmum uunug gamuom K‘ENA>GMfl go wA‘z5-255477/2021 Dnlsm pevkarz Award Mnhkamah Perusahaan No ass raw. 2921 bonankh 2242021 can dflenma olen Pemomn pad: zuzuzw dalam Kai Mahkanuh Perusanaanua A/4—us3/I9‘ Dan Dalam pemara mm uavmnmrun umuk Penman Csmoran‘ Dan Dawn pmm Seksyan zu ma Pemubcmgan Puusahaan 1957. Dan Dalam ualkala mengenav Janus! 1 Am Mihkamah Kahildmnn mu. Dan Dz\am perkara Amvan 53 xaeaanxaeaan Muhkamah 2012 ANYARA mass co-uunsnn am Pmvwhon am 1 M-mm-n mum. nn Mallyslx 2 Viv cum. wan Raspondenrfissponaen Heard logelharwnh / Dwdengar hersnml Due : .« 15 sm pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsza «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! mum runxnmm mom MALAVA on nun; LLIMPUR mum wuunu pznszxuvum xugu umvuw. uuuwsu rsarucuu KUASA-KLIASA xrusr PERMOHOMAN unrux ssmxnu KEI1AKlM5y ug WA~25~lEI—(I7/1021 Dnlam perkam Award Mankamah Puusahean No as: Yahun 2021 xmunn. 2242021 can mlenma oxen Pemahcn mu. 294202: dahm Kas Mnhkamnh Pelusahaan No A/44484/19 Dan uawam penars susm pemmmnin umuk Penman Cemoran‘ Dan Dalam Devkzm Seksyen 2a ma Pemummgnn Puruuhaan I961‘ Dan Dawn nencava mennenax Jaduzl v. Akla Mahkamah Kahakrmnn 1994. Dun Dalam perkala Alumn 53 Kaeaamcaeaan Mankzmnh 2m: ANTARA Muss Conlull San am: Pemomn om 1 u-mum.» Ptmsahnn Mmym 2. Ln Khurn vmg Resvnnden-Resmnden mm Iogalmr Mm / Dwdengav naruma mu Mxs sm pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsza «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 9 However‘ the law has now developed to allow a dacrslon lo be challenged on gvourlds O9 Illegallly and lrratlonalllyl which then permus ma Coulis Io scru|inIzs me daclsrorl no| only lurlhe process but also for substance 10 ll rs sellled law lrlal lhe mgr: courl mu rml rrrlerlara wllh a denislon af me lnduslrial cuurl unless ll can be eslaulrsned lrral lrre declsion ls lnlecled wlm errors ol law. 11 The mearung afermv or law has also been explalned bylhe oourl ol Appeal m we case or syarlkal Kondman ulelayu Kelaman and v. 1 nlpnfl wcnlm Unlon mus) l MLRA zec; mes] 2 cu 743; [1995] 2 MR 1601; [1995] 2 MLJ 311 ln lhe lollowrrrg words. “It ls nellherlus nor dull hle In name: In Ixhnulhvl dufinluun 0! mm Imnunll no In trier M I... rm me calagurles on such an error are no! uased. But [I may In 3 u am In urrnv av law would bd diwloud il ma declslon-ullklr uks hlmsell me umng qnnsliun urum lnlo account mlmm cnnlldlrluons nr orun. Ia uh nlo Ixnurll ulovnnk clmslflevallons [whal may be wnvemenlly lermed an Anlsmmn: errerldr ifhl mllcnrllllull In mm of y um ul-mu. ar ruluppll. or mlssulu a pvlncvnle ulme an ml l.Iw ~ lemphasls added) 12 surularly, ln me case ofAlrsp:-:1 Manug-mom sarvlcu Sdn Bhd v. Col (3) Human: Sinuh cluugur slngll man] 1 MLRA cu; [zoos] 4 CL! 17, me Conn 01 Appeal held lhal an erroneous lrllerenee an «acne ls also an error at law wmch would warram an arderafceninvari - "On me alive! hand. we mean. M course. mu :1 u armr-ly usmpolanl lar ma wan Own WI cenmarl pvoceedlnas la dlsagvaa Wllhlhs lrrduslnal Calm on me corlcrusllms or lruereuass avawn by Ihe lane! lmm me pruvea ar aammaa evldence an lru wound lira! no reasenaula lnlmrul xlmllany clrcumslanued would have aimed ax such a wncllslon or drawn such an lmerence An urnmoul lumm. hum puma urldmilhd llcu ll 71 armor um um In um Mlacv." (emphasls added) 13 ll ls lrua |ha| the ngm la reorgamsa ls a marlagenal prervgallve as firmly eslabllshed ln lmlliam Junk: 5 co (M) Bhd u. s. aalasingam {mo} 1 MELR 312; [1996] 2 MLRA an; [1997] 3 Due 11 of 15 sru pznmugyzzvuvnvuuvsza “Nair s.r.r nuvlhnrwm .. UIQG u may r... urwlrullly -mm: glam. Vfl muua war AMR 2565: [I997] 3 CL! 235 wherein me Coun of Appeal had also defined ‘rarenchmenl as follows. — 191 - Reuenchmem means “the ensename afsumlus Inbuuruv staff by In nmnlru/Iv Yer nny mason whalloavsr mnemse than as a pumshmem mlhcled by way aldlscvphnary a¢lKm'[ 1 [ma] Whether Irv: retmnchmam exerdse m a pamcum and u Dona me or almrvnu‘ m a quesuon M lacl ma ufdsgrnt dlpendmq Iur Ils resomlvon upon me Deeulwr has and arcumslances av each case n u will- nlllnd mu m Impluynrl cmlllcd In mum ms mu. In an manner he can u bus 59 lung: as man manag pm" a mmuua born - mu daelnlon LI lmmum mun ulminnllon mn by Ina Induslrlal Cmm Nawaver me mdusinzl Cowl e empowered. and mdeen aumaoum, la wwesugalz me has and wwmstances m a Dimcular new to delevmme wvvalhar um uumsu m power was In 13:1 Dona me ‘ (emphass adaed) 14 In cnowon Mn ylll Lxmmd v. um chm Hoek 5 Anal [2911] MLRHU 1:30 min CLJII 2321. me Hugh Cmm likewise scaled me nnnounte as vouaws. ~ 1171 'ln dlsrmssvvg me an Respcmdsnls oumermon and auowmg me Appucanls appueazm m. Cmm mm mm ca...m...a um Aupnnunm Dcullmn and Inmnnl «am .. ... umwlunv mm‘ as ml agumum plemgallvt 49 dead: IM puneues, snmegles mm ruqulrumnnl won - nmmunng or uovuunizlllon mm -- ma] Al an empwoyer, m. Appllclnlhrtl Inn «mm: mm: and volume of as Vnbnur me. ennsnsmn mm «In om.n.mm.~s olakzllvu ma flmcllun. mm novylnlullon we. mm conuquem In ncmmmlc and mm mnnngamunl o4 cm bum-es. an: no sowlne al smm of its umplnyees were mm to o. ndunflanl or nxculrv um . mu aemon w. axccuhd In me um. um scum usln nnnnunlsllo vlcl mlsalhmnfns employns, a ployu wu mun Incordlngly mama to uiummc mu n-mun axons (emphasis added) 15 The above decxswon was amrmea by we own at Appeal vme cwu Apnea! Na W-0I(A)»38—D1/2017 u... 1: .7: :5 sm pznmugyzzvuvnvuuvszo «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! The dlcisloll onus com a. That me lndusl I Court had erred in last and new when ll mlauppllad lne lugal prlnplples gonnnno lo ndundlncy and rezr-nenrnen . Ipoolflcullyr when it lrwnncllily epnelndnd (hit me 2"‘ Respnn cult‘: employment contract could only In valldly lerlrllrlalod lollowlng me oorllpl ' n ar lerrninaxlen ol lns LRT3 Prolscl. b. Thenhe Industrial Court had -rred ln um and law when l had concluded lnnl - voliundnncy um n cauld only nrlse upon the callullalloll or lallure of the LRT3 Pruisrrl; as, Havlrlg perused me lndnslnal cdurrs Award. I am of lhe vlew lhal lne lnduslrlal Conn erred ln [ad and law when ll wncluded lnel a redundancy sllualiun could Mlly arlse .n «he clrcurvlslarlces exphcllly slaled V1 clause 14 do me 2"= Respondenrs empldymenl cdnlram 17 we can be gleaned lrom lne Award of me learned cnemnan when he slaled as lpllows - 1291 rp pul nelenny I! lheappolrllmerllsolall lhe clennnnls W51! an 3 fixed lenn contract at O31Vlp|€}yVYV5/V|.F|llS|llIIIl\‘) clause 14 of me Claimants‘ uppulnunenl leners, me Cnmnllly :In only unnlnsu Iilnlr urvlcu ldr lne followlnll nawns av qruulvdl m uppn ln. cumplnllorl M on assifillmnrll lulvltly lhl Pro:-cl or on Where the cllenl lnslructs . ch np. of lurwrl dun to Illcnlrlpwullcu nr noll pmenn-nee an pull of on Clnlmnmx ur mu mm mm: dull nel cnmnluhv ll: count pr l- unnlnsud by me cllenl ahead afschedu w enmr 5 s m. [291 By ineerpominp an virlulls grounds or reasons (or which me clurn-me can In lennlnmd «nun Ihnlromploynlulli. nu Company rnex-s ll nblllldnntlyclullhal on Company wlll not tcmllvulo mo cl mam: lune : coodmuns Ind lbuvl hid nulmatlnlli-d ur cryuulllud um! um corllinnnlu kl pm-n. n IlIlp|9ylIllrl| nnlu ln. expi 011?: r d tnml colllracl or me 1-mllrnenr nllhe colldinoll -xpv Ind In cl...“ 14 man. »...ueus em pzmneyzevdvnvnpvszu «we. Smnl ...n.mn n. LAIQ4 m my n. ewnmun em. m.n.n n. nFluNG vtmxl xaq In lhn Ivunl me Pmjefl ma en 1119 camp!!!» as cnnrse or me unnnnmn by an cmnunuu of eeneame men nu Colnpnny could nonihly Iuccud in ll: cormnlion mm vitw 91 um Ialluu ea In: Propel In complu: [Is mm or Ina! n was xennunaxee by on Cllunt an a of Ichndnl . glnulllu ridulldincy Illuuion nee Instr: glvmg eawn rm me Company In vvuvgamse or venmmure us argamsnnon wmch may my load m renenunnenz er me cnnnenu u there was sulvlusufi libaw [:51 Tm Company was charmnu mlanlnun vman fllaamglha Iermmamn an an we malmanh met me reason my such (srvmnahun was an account L71 clause ueune npnumlmam Valle! al all me c mnnlsyemn wldunu bdon ma. Calm quit: many uannm in fify me Iuvminilvovl enn- CI-lmanu pm-an: m clnuu u In none ohm confllllnn ma down In mu» 1: van magma junnynne (M kmnlnntlon of .u an Elaimlnls. me ounducl M the Company In Iannlnalmg me cnennanrs pursulm In damn M0! the appomlmanl mum wn ch-lly m mean 0! me mannanus mnlran no e-npneymenn wvlh me Company mat ensures :eeun|y ac nun let me dumhon no men me (am: eennaexs nl ampvuymem ' (emphasis added] 15 Based on me above finding. me Veamed cnainnen had apphed a resmcluve |nlerpve|a|>on cllha (ervmnalion clause eune Empbyrnenl Conlract smoe |he Veamed chamnen nad made a findmy (hit me provision at (Mans: 14 of me Emplaymenl cunuacx had to be sausfiad nevme me 2"-1 Reepenaenrs amplnymenl could be tervrwlated for any reason, Incmdlng redundancy. 19 However, .n eennng In hvs lindmg. lhe Iearnee Chairman nea vauee to oonsxder me express residual ngm lo Cermmale me agreement repcsed no mm pemes as envisaged m Clause 14 as mews. — --14 Tunnlnitlml Yemlmnlmn n anon wmplelron of ma lnlgnmem av when the menu wnslmcls a change at nelson due to mmmpexence or mn-performance an yourwewotflme Fmmxdoau nmeempme ns eeumer xslemu \ a by me wen! areas of sc)1edu\a wmchever vs earhet Eixhu puny mnlmllnx an. ngm In umnin n ma lppnlnlnllnl hyulvlny not me min lwo mnlllhs nofict in writing me u .: :5 sm pznmngyzzvuvnvunvsza «wn. smuw ...n.mn s. U... n vsfly n. nrW\n|H|Y mum: mmn VI mum v-max 20. 21. 22 23. 24. Gmmty mu nu| be pm In ynu n yuu apl In Iovlmnale yam services wan ms Compmy pm. In Ilwmmaflun or Inn P-clad ma aumeu In ma Drum: hzndma my man documsms. elc' Kernnlwasws added) Based on the abave CIauss14,|I|s clear IJ1a\ the express condmans var termmahon macs to me auwmane mmmauen Mme eonuscl in urcumsv.-mes outsme me fixed term duration Mme contract, and nolhvng precruasa me Appucanl rmm (ermmanng the 2'“ Respundenfs empbymcnl {or any ulnar vahd reasons such as mxsmndun, poor penmmanoe or, as m me msvam case‘ redundancy Therelore‘ I vvew mat by hohmg that the 2"‘ Raspondenfs Iermmalvnn could only vanmy came about by sausiymg me spacmc eenamons lislsd in Chusa 14 of ms empluymanl conlrach the Indusmal cam had oecasxaned a clear ermv or Vaw by (army to apply me appmpnaxe principles cl law which arise in mnneclxon war: a claim at redundancy. Further‘ I am 07 the view that the lnduslnal Court, by ounflnlng Its vwew lo ms cundlhuns set out w Claus: 14 of (he amp\nymen| contract, lawled Io app\y the correct law or to ask usew me Iundamenlm queslxon as In whether a redundancy swluahon had‘ In ‘aw and VI Vad, ansen based on the cimumsvanees of |hB case. Upon perusal al me evidence produced beiove the uxausuial court, 1 find thal lhe Malaysvan Govemman| had dlrecfly suspended and placed me um Propel under review, mandaung than an stakeholders H1 Ihe LRT3 Frcqecl immemen! stringent oos| oplimwsllmn. The Malayswan Govammenls review culminated in a reslrucmnng of (he enlwe LRT3 Fmgech wmch mcmded sigmflcam changes such as an extended umehne for eompnemn from me to 2024 and a raduchcn In various deliverahles In Arkflek Akiprima Sdn Bhd v. Lllng slew Fate 5 Anor [2001] 1 MELR As: [2002] 1 ILR «so, me IndusInalCom1 considered that me enema! mnuenoe oflhe govemmenl uomd consmule a basis for retrenchmenl when n held Inler aha as iouows — ‘ wnsmsrme grounds «mme rE|renchmen| gwan by emmuyev are we met V5, vmemermeve had m lac: names a mum" m me uusmess ol the comparwdun m cwcumslances such as scamny uv raw rnituual an up :5 av :5 sm pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvszo “Nun: sum lunhnrwm .. med u my u. mum-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! lne avzrlabllny 0! WNCI1 lne running suns lazlury depends ulsuwpaan :1 warn nndar ma mar. M ma wovnmmt 4, or thing In nnoln whlcrl made n lrnaossllan to commul ma huslmsl Ixnblal a less or on rrraagra pmllu ' (emphasls added) 25 Premlsed on me almye and revlewmq lne evldence lnal has been adduced. l am dune Vlew me learned Chalrrnan lalled la adnslder mal me Appllcanrs decision |o reonganlse lls buslness operalmna was a Dona fide exemlse ln response to external loroes whlch could not be deprecaled or Ignored The Malayslan sdyernrnenl nad dlracuy suspended and revlewed me LRT3 Pmjech culmlnahng ln srgnmcanl changes m we same. specifically an exlendad llmellns lar oomplellon and reduulons Io varlaus delweranles 25 The lnduslnal Courl lalled Ia adequalely cansrder lne apprdprlale legal |esl as lo wnsmer a genulne redundancy sllualmn has ansen, and had hereby rrnsdlrecled lzsall 17! law and racl Thal ma lndusmal coun nan arrad ln fact and law and had lakan lnlo conaldar n inalavam rnauars whorl It had concluded that ma Appncam was required to omain me pannlsslan nl Praaarnna andlor MRCE-GK lo I-rmlnmn ma urvico (1! ma 2'" Raapondam. 27 on «ma lssue. naylng perused me learned cnaxrmans Award, he nas come to me lallawing llndlngs: - 1:3) ay making Ihls slalemerll me Campirly nannally cnrluadlx that n .5 human by me canflmons lald dawn VI me appomlmenl letter dared me as me and ma lmnnlry cl Flrlanoa maul: release Now: r nowhere lnuna slrucllovlfrlml the Cllenllurlhe casl Opvflmlsal n are». ay ma ulalayalnr. Guvlmmlnl van that any lnnmeum var lne company In Iumlinalu any of ma kly aaraannal. "ll Cumplny was also mx able to show «nus cenn any such Ilulruchnnl mun cm clsarn orEmployIr|h.I| purm n had bun ob ad for ma bumllullon of any :0 [Is employee. rn runs century tn ma my wndlllon lmpo d ay lhl Emmy-r aa mi ln me lelmera aaauinun-nxdaud ns.nI.znIs. n ms absence nl any lnauucuon (ram ma Ellinl or Emplnylr u anylaagad ln ma mm olaapolnnnnrn damd nuuzola on ma snannaa to um um al kty pllsonml wnhoul any war wflllen approval will run comrny me 16 9! x5 srn pzamngyzzvuvnvunvsza «nu. s.nn nuvlhnrwm a. med m my r... nflmnaflly sum. dnuuvlanl y. .nuna Wm! 1:: nu: mm M lppnlnlmnnl «mm aa.na.2o1e ind clnuse u aflhe uppolnlmnnl mm at on cuvnnnu - (emphasis added) 23 Based an one above Award of me learned Cnawnan. «ms cmm vnews Ina! me lnduslnal Court had made an error when wt had consumed \ha| based an the terms or me Vsuer 01 appmmmem as helween me Apphcam, Prassrana and MRCEVGK. clear mslruclinns andluv permlssxon had Ia be gwen la the Apphcanl nevuve m wmd vahdw dwsrmss me 2"“ Respondent 29. 1 am e! me mew that the wearned Chairman‘: nnamgs on «ms Issue are pervevse and enuneaus m law and m (am because: - 29.1 Any alleged ncn—ccmphanr:e mm the provlsxons 01 me agreement between me Apphclnl, Prasarana, and MRCBVGK has no beanng whatsoever on me que as m wneme: a buna flde redundancy suuauon nas ansen 29 2 There 15 newher any emphzymem nor any con|rac\ua\ rexamnsnrp baxween me 2M Rapondem and Prasarana and/or MRCB-GK, and lherelore the absence (:1 any appmva\ or pervrussnen fmm Chase emilles does not vinale the vahdwly Many veksnchment by the Appficanl. so runner, nms ceun \s of me new that even :1 (here Is any such non- compliance‘ vf Itexwsled, m wumd be a canlracluen mspme between me Applncam. Fuasayana and/ov NRCB-GK, and mus, me Induslnm caun had mlsdileaed nsew wn law by hmdvng that me terms of me agreement be\ween the Appncam, Frasarana, and MRCB—GK were delerrmnahve anne empmyrnenk relanonsmp belween me Apphcanl and me 2"“ Responuem. 11. Th! Indllllrial Court and In Iolml oi II (I whln I! found that the :05! review carriad out by (hi Manayuan Government had nofi yal hlln mad: on III! dill of Illmlnatlon 01 (III 2"‘ RIl|'JDrIdll1l’I nrvlcm wh Iby (Ila Indul Cour! d In take into nccnunt lhc comonls of me Inlslry of Finam:|'s puss nluu filled 12.7.2|‘lII announcing lhl VflY|D|l5 mnlurn I0 rlducl In! con! Ind mom of tho LRT3 FFOJOG1. v... 17 M 25 m pznmngyzzvuvnvunvsm «wn. snn ...n.mn n. U... a may n. nflmnnflly -mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa v-max e. we lnduslnal Court enred n fact wilulu n lallad Io nlvn due consldlrallolu to tho ml nl Ind vndlspuled laols, sooellloally nu mum" to nude. nu ml and wow onn. um wmlecl announced by the Mlnlsny of Flnnnco had ruullld m a Vlflnctloll In lhl App||=-Int‘: personllol rcqlllrvlvlonll. 3|. Hlnd (hat the lnduslrlal Court had mlsdlrecled use}! when concluded lha| the cosl VGVISW axerclse had not laken place at lhe llme the 2"’ Respondent‘: servloe was lermlnated and lalled Ia corlslder lne measures annevnoed by me Malays.-an eevernmenl aocordlng lo lhe out review exemlse 32. I find the finding of the learned Challman on (his lssue Is agalllsl and/or contrary to he Malaysian GmIarnn1erIl's awn pless release daled 12 7 ma‘ vvrnen makes expressly clear we ouleome or us oosl opllmlsalicrl exerclse ln lms respect. me Mlrllslry ol Flnanoe had stand lnler Illa as [allows lrl the sand prass lvlenss. - me nnal lolal cosl M me man Fn»ec1 IS reduced by 47% llum RMCH es ollon ro amass bllllorl vavng Malaysans a lolal el RM15 oz olllon vnlseasx wlll lnclmt pmilcxcosls lncludmg bul not lvnnad no Walk Fackagl Comlacls lWPEsy land Bmulsllmn. pmpcl mznagemem conaulunoy fun‘ opemlnorlzl and overnead eosls. as well as lnlalesl durlng mnsllumlun r (emphasls added) (See Enclosurn 3 ol plan 2:1 _ 261) 33. The Minlslry lurlner nlgnllgnls eaveral key respecls ln wnlen lne costs ler lhe LRT3 Pmled had been ophmlsed, lncludmg reduorng me seooe ellne pmlecl, exlendlng lne eumplellan Ilmehne by four addrlronal yeera and convemng lne plulecl lrom a PDF model no a fixed onoe model :4. This IS luflher corroboraled oy me undispu|ed laol lnal wmle me Malayslen Government nad announoed me oonvalslan ol lhe LRT3 Project llorn me FDP model lo lne fixed onoe model‘ lne aolual novallon agreernenl was only slgrled on 22.2.2u1e 35 I find lnal lne sleps which followed me Malayslarl Governmenrs press release were clearly lakerl lo lmplemsnl declslcns lnal had already been made‘ oonlrary lo we lnduslnal couns findlrlg man an. n of X5 am pznmngyzzvuvnvunvszo «we. Smnl luvlhnrwm a. d... a mm he anvn.l-v MW: dnuavlml v. nFluNa penal 1ne ac|ua\ ocsn opnnnnsannon exermse nan also no\ naken place an me hme nna cnanrnams were Iamuna|ed' as The Indusnnan Cam ansa canned to consider Ihe malenal eneans or me changes announced Dy me Malaysnan Govamnnenn vnde nna press Mlesse dated 12 7 2012‘ m yaflicular, "15 reduction II’! the scale 0! nne mm Pmnecn and an exnension annne pmject hmshnswhere nna Applncam was reqmred no do ness wnrk over a longer period on nnns. 37 More irnponannny, I find man me 7"’ Responaenn had oornoaded ounng nne prooeeding belore nna nnoosnnan caunn nnan ms changes annuunaau oy nne Mnnnslry an Fmance nn July 2013 would noqnma resnruclunng by me Appnicann ‘[5] o nsnnagaan no you mm nmongnolhnrlhnngs axlandmg nn. smaon daadlms by new addnbonal years would nnanananny anvacn ma namre. smpe ano nnlemnly M wnvk Involved Maannng no say Balm-e lhns ma Cumuiny waum luv: :2. -xuacn-a na mun an as oannvanaones by 2020 mwn had nnnnnn 2u24m mean essennally nn. um: [M lvuenaalrverablls se wurk would be mom splat! nu! Agvse or dnsagraa” A ween} n u <2 mm on an onns cnangss announcsd byxhe Mnn-nrym Fmanoen hom ma reduomn nnwsnsnonna vavnous changes no ms wupo oilhu LRT3 Frunscl annn ma levuad umalnna n pu| Ma ymn man. nn orderlo aowmmodzlz lhme charwes me Company was rammed In masses: Ind mllruclure Mi ananc womng on ma Pvuped Agree urdIsagru7 A var as. aasaa on nne aornnssnon Mine 2"“ Respondent above. me Inannsnnan courn had committed a sanaus error m fan ay falling no mnslder nns subsvannnve nrnuacn cl nna cnanges announced by nna Manaysnan Government on n2.7.2ons ano suhssquemly nmplemeruad by me Applncanln Prasarana and MRCB-GK. and wnanner ma sama wound gnve nse no a bone fide redundancy snnnanion. 39 Indeed‘ m savaran cases. such as‘ camr Pu an no Sdn and v. Sharmirni Devil [2000] I MELR 1:2; man) I ILR 302. me Induslnal Conn nas tuned with approval ma vouawnng passage nonn Harvey on |nduMrna\Cour1(Vo1 1)v Fur 15 ans sm pzunnngyzzvuvnvnnuvsza “Nana sanun navnhnrwm a. met! a my n... anmnauly am. flnunmnl n. mum v-man 1». sumvlest Ivan of nflundulcy mm wmn ms mmnsss mm. mm vmuloyt - of whunvn mm. n my a. um um. :- . nc umn, and mm Business mas mm umnlay-Ix buuuu :1 II opnmllny will! 3 nduud outrun. sun ms: "nu nul be so. Yheve can just as wan be . mdundarvcy svluahcn when: we rmmaaa acmevas the same oreveu an mueasefl nuv.nu| mm leweremplvyees. ma can come about Ihlough mechumulmn av cnmpulnnulmn m ‘I111 by mcreasad aomsvmy (empnass added) 40. Funhar, me mgr. Cuurl m we case at Slupllln Bong V. FOB (M Sdn Bhd & Anor [1999] 5 MLRH 107; mm 3 MLJ 411heldlha|- [<21 im nollm lnwihnl ndundlncy In mun» orwam no Ionuu Ridundincy silulfinnx an vmnm the nusnnsss requires kwlr Imploylu at whmwrklnd mmsy on lndusmm Duspulzsl (emphasis added) 41 Gwen the above. «ms com vs nf me view (ha| by lalhng lo lake mlo oansmeramn me matenai xmpscl of me cas1 remew exemse announced by me Malaysian Govemmenl, the wmpugned Awavd cnnlzins malena\ mfirmmes of facl and law, m mac n «ans |o adequately apprecvale lha| as a resuh a1 me sa exercwse, wmcn resmled m an exxsnaaa deadlme and a redudmn us (he scope 01 me LRT3 Projecl. ma Anphcanl reqmred lewer employees to do me work 01012 2"’ Responaam. 42 Adam to (haL I a\so find that not omy am the Inausmal coun reach an vrauanal conclusmn when n new mm me east review exemsa announced was me grass release had ya! la occur ax me me me 2"“ Respundenrs serwces were lermmated, but u had a\su failed m consider the actual effed at the exemss on me LRT3 Prujecl. and specmcaHy me Appncanrs wmldome reqmremenls m relahan (helelo L Thl|ndIlSfriI|CDuI1Irrldln tumsofllcls wllun If Ind Ia givl due cons: eration in (III III-Illrlll fink ihat althnugll some of Ike luncllons and tasks of mo 2" Rnpondonl as a Resident Eng car did not nap. (hi chlngu la (III worn and complullon data av me LRT3 Project means that lhu suid funnlons and tasks could be pmmm-a by me nmalnlng Rosldunl Englnnl and accordingly, il 5! nod disputed lhll fill lwo positions van m 9! 15 am pznmngyzzvuvnvunvszo «ma. am nmhnrwm s. U... w my s. mm-y am. dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! sum nnmuum TINGGI mum on KUALA LUIIPUR mum WILAVAH pznszxurum xunu LUMPUR, muvsm (auucuw KUASA-KUASA mus) rzmononm um K ssmuuu KEHM mu no wuszvmvmzu Dllam parka/a Award Mahkamah Fvrusahaan Na 334 Tahun 2:221 bvnankh 2242021 den auenma clan Pemnmn um 2912021 damn Kes Minksmih Pevusahaan Nu A/44455/19 Dan Dalam perkara mm plmmmvvan umuk Fgnntah Cenmran Dan oaxam Derkam Sekxynn 2o Akla Pemubullgin Pemsahaan 1967 Dan Dawn pemara menoenau Jaduav 1, ma Mammn Kahnbdnun «sea Dun Dzlam Derkava Aturan 53 Kaedarvkaedah Mahkimah zmz ANTARA Muss cumuusan and Femomn DAN 1 Mlhlumah Puusahaan Mllaylla 2. momma Nun am Naslr Mnhlmafl Reapumwkesponaen Heard mgslner mu /Duiengar bersama v... 1 .7: :5 sm pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsza «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! (including the ielevanl functions and (salts) were combined and nervomied by a eingie Resident Engln a. The Industrial Courl emd whnn it t led to give due consideration to in. material fact that the 4. cllon pvocoaa IAIIII by (III Appllizanl wu fair and nporop blclun an the empioyees were engaged on fixed nemi contracts‘ trio nssessmenl was conducted by me ctii Resident Englnur and the e action w: I: d en the mu and iunctione aiiectod by the reduced scorn oitrie LRT3 Pmjacl. 43 in this respect. iririd that the 1“ Respondeniiaiied to appreciate |ha\ me piincipie oi ‘Last in, First om (LIFO) was oi iimiied utility in trie insient ease, as all Resident Engineeis iinciuaing the 2"“ Respondent) were engaged on simiiar fixed-term contracts 4:: Far inis isasnrie I VIEW inai it was appiopnete ior the Anphnanl to proceed. as it did, by assessing ine overall penonnanoe oi all Residenl Engineers engaged in me LRT3 Pioieci and pieaicaiing iie decision based on its assessment 45 in Sarawak siieii Bhd v. Ismail sanat 5 075 [m2] 1 MELR mi [2002] 2 [LR 371,015 ‘fIdU§‘VIEICOU|18CC€Dl8d a departure ham lhs UFO Drlnclple in a retrenchment exercise observing Inter aiia as IDIVOWS - -ine mun agiees wim ine Subfllissmn oi ieeinad couneei ioi me oompany on me non-vigbfifly oi the UFO pnncioie mie are amnln aulltorllins iiiiei dlcidl man an Implulyif may Ior sound and in main depart [mm sltlclly applying in. use pmicipie. Such a. nun: an inn vied on me bull oi in. .aiiity, cnmpnllbllllyi suinbilny and emciency oi Jnninl omc-is who am mu rd in pimi-once la mmr eeniei eivicm me lo in. metric lnhensts omi umployur.” (emphasis adaadi 46 Likewise, in Ahmld Marxukl hln Abdul Rank v. coicom Networks sun and [2013] MELRIJ zou me Indusinai Cnurl observed as ioiiows: - v... )1 in 2; IN pZnmivigyZEVUVDVuDYS2O “Nana s.n.i inmhnrwm be ii... M may i... nrwiriaflly siiii. dnuumril VII aF\uNG Wm! 47 4a 49 50 5|. 52 ‘Ill me absence al dnuble standard or nesrrss, me calm r... In: ml: Ia plly In (M uunrrlem pres. mpleryud eyme company lempnasrs added) In mwleu Packard (M) Sdn aha v. Thangasamy arewn Grunlyulham noon] 1 MELR 1l2;[200D]1ILR198,|helrldusInal Court held as lellews. » ‘In reel oemeo uses shuw that ll ls me Implnyu who r. on ludgu ul me -rrrployu-s poflovmlnnu me me llllpluyul has no clvlalcn hm to accent Ihis jrmgrrrem rm ecnplnyel who nullnnnd mo uvnulnl mm onlvln mew mu M Ma mm mm. no-.~ lerhphasrs added) Based on the above. I find that the lndus1rlaI Court erred ln finding mat me Appllcanl was ohllgaled II.) rnlorm me 2- Respormeru abnm the ippralsal and the reason lheraof, and the (allure Ia du so rendered me appralsal male fldes The findlngs ol me lnduslnal courr are clearly rn mnfllcl wlzh eslaolrsneo lnduslrlal lurlsprudence, whroh has held |haI lhere ls no requlremehr lo na|lfy employees at me selecuon process or ID corroucl appralsals personally mm me employees Funlrer, me lnduslvlal Ccun ccmmllled e sennus error of can by determinlng lhal l| was lrlcumben| upon lhe Appllcanl (0 Lake sepemle sleps lo address me 2m Responderrrs perlormanoe, when your perlormenoe was never rhe basls luv me 2"“ Respondenrs ursmlssal The lnouslnal Court also lalled lo appreclale that the cmerla employed oy Ihe Applrcerrr, In wl|, assessmg lhe Resldenl Erlglneels‘ respective yeriorrnancasl and lelrmg mlo wnslderatlcn oomplelrrls vlssawrs me 2" Respenoenrs oerlorrrrenoe were a relevanl mener lor lhe Applleml lo lake lrllo cnnslderallon ln seleclmg which slalllo relrench lrom lhe LRT3 Prolecl, and «ms ls sepemle and dlsllhcl lrom a (ermlnauon for poor perlormanoe. Further, the lrlfluslnll Court had entirely lgrlored Ihe Anpllcanfs oomparelive organrselron charls, Whlch had reflected the mnsolldallon ol several posmons and me rumoval cl cerlaln fBSDOVVSlDl\Y|IESl whlch were taken over by MRCB~GK e... n n? 15 m pznmnrgyzzvwnvunvsza “None Smul luvlhnrwm .. med e may r... nflmnullly mm. mm. VI nFluNa Wm! 53 Added lo lnal, l find lhal the lnduslrial courl did nol address me clearly relevanl lac: (hall under me Aonlicanrs new organisation charts. lne ‘Quality Assurance no longer exisleo, moreolleli conlemporaneous mmmunlcalluns belweeri lne Aoolioam and MRCB-GK Idnher eanrirrned lnal lne ‘fiuallly ;e.eurenoe' Iunclmn would be MRCEGK responsibility. 54. Slml|arly,(helndusIniaICoul1 did nol address the fact mat the 0|’!!! Residenl Engineer roles were consolidated, for examplai whereas there had previously been lwo Resident Engineer (M&E) rolee rnese nad subsequsnlly neen Combined inlo a single posiliori. conclusion 55 Fremised on me reasons given above, l am oi lne View lnal lne lnddslnal courl s findings aswnlainad in me impugned Award were marred by rrialerial errors ofracl and law. 55 rrie leanied clieirmen oi lrie lndusmel Caurl nad occasioned a luridamenlal ermr wnen he construed me lerms oi me 2"“ Respondenls employment mnlract to mean man his employment could only oe lerrninaled pursl.lnrl| lo lne lnree express coridilions slaled (herein and for no other reason including redundancy 57 The lndnslrinl ceurn error was iimner compounded wnen ii lunlier concluded that me conlraclual lenris between the Applioanii MRCB- GK and Pi-asarana dlveclly alleoled the Aoplicarirs powerio dismiss ils employees. 55 The Industrial ooun occasioned ldruier senoos errors o1 fad and law wneri ll oendluded lnsl ine eosi reyiew exercise oy lne Malaysian Goyernrnenl nad nolyel been implernenled as in me lime o1 lrie 2” Rspondenrs dismissal, wnereoy I! lied lailed lo properly aooreeiaie the press release oy lne Minielry oi Finance dared ‘2n7»2m8i and riad iurlnerniore leiled lo lake lnlo considerelon lrie subslanllve efiects oi the changes announoed by the Malaysian eoirerrinieni lo the LRT3 Proiecl Fun 1: ml 15 rn pzunrrrgyzzvwnvuuvsza “Nair Smll luvlhnrwlll r. in... e my in. nflnlnullly MIMI flnuavlml vn .rinne WVM 59 Funhen me Industrial ooun erred in M appreuauon and applvcamcn ml the selection cmsna adoplad by (he Appllcarn IVI smectlng me 2"“ Respondent for redundancy, whemnn me mauscnsl Cnurl had applied the reqmremenls for msnussal an the grounds 01 poor pednnnance‘ wmch are mapphrable and e\evanI to ma Ins|anl rams so Pvermsed on me aloresam reasons, I am 0! me view man me decnsxon onne mduscnal Cowl ws lainled wnh the error oflsw and/or mauanamy and/or unreasonatfleness wmch wanant me cunal mlsvvenhon av this Court. in. As such. \ allowed the Appllcanfs applicahnn lnr wdmizl rm/new m JR 268, JR 269. JR 270 and JR 271 C051 cl RM 1,500.00 wnn aHocaml to be paid Dy me 2* Respondent m JR 265, JR 259‘ JR 270 and JR 271 In the Aunncam Dated: ['5 January 21:24 Ahmad Kamal hm Md snama Judge High Conn Kua\a Lumpur v... u M 2; m pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsza «mm. smuw lunhnrwm .. U... n may he nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! counsels Far the Appflcanl. am 1 Thavalmgam (Enmk David Tan Sang Keat wnh mm) Teluan T. Thavalmgam ea. Co Peguambela flan Peguamcara sums K-341‘ ms 3‘ B\oK K. Na 2, Jalan suuans. semis Mon| Knara‘ 50480 Kua\a Lumnur. Fm me 2" Respondent: Enclk Mohammad Am bm Shanpufldnn Teluan Razi1.Abdu\A1Iz 5 Partners Peguambela den Feguamcara 33-3 .3. am am Fkmn Bmck 3‘ Megan Avenue 1, No, :99, Jalan Tun Razak. some Kuala Lumpur (Ru; Tuan- 43951/19/RAAP/MASlU—hak|mj ..ms.us m pznmngyzzvuvnvunvsza «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max mum MAHKAMAN nusm DMLAVA nu KUALA LUIIPUR mum wnuvm wsnssxumm KLIALA LUIGPUR. muvau (amuzunu KuAsu<uAsA sous) Pzrwonomm umux ssmuuu KEHAKIMAN MD M gs.2mm2u21 mm parkara Award Mankamah Plrusahaan Na s32 ram 202: benankh 2242021 am mtsvlma men Femohon pads 194202! awn Kai Mahkzmah Ferusahaan Na A/A4486/19‘ nan Dalam pemara sualu ne/mahanan unluk Permian Calxamru Dan Damn perkara Seksyen 2:: Am Pemubungan Fem:-Ihiun I951‘ Dan Dalam nelkara manuenau Jeans‘ 1‘ Am Mahkamah Kehakvman 1964. Dan Dawn parkara Aluran 53 Ksedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA Muss Cansulxsdn ans Pemohnn am 4. Mahkamah Pcmnhun why... 2 mum: B-hurl um Ibrlhlm Rnspundaniespnnflnn me-ms sm pznmugyzzvuvnvuuvszo «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Judgment Inlmduclion t The Applicant nad med judicial review applillltan Na WA—252B8r G7/2021 (JR 283). ND.: WA-25»269»D7/2021 (JR 28D), Nu . WA-25- 270-07/2021 (.|R27o) and No WA—25-271-07/2021 (JR 211) under order 5: oi tne Rutes at court zotz (RDC) ior amongst otners. an Order 07 Certtorart to quash the Induslnnt Court Awards N0 835 of 2021, No 531 012021, No: 834 1752021 and ND 832 of 2021 da|ed 22.4 2021 respec' Vy 2 Aitnoudrt lhese annitceimns emanate irorn separate Awards at ttte industrial court, they an relate to wnat are essentially tdenttcat lens. tndaad, att iour cases were heard lagelhevin tne proceedings oeiore tne tndtrstrtei Conn, and me oontents oi tne Awards trtentsetves are suostanttvety rdenttoat 3 In the above Award, tne First Respondent (lndunrlal court) new that the Second Respondent tn JR 268, JR 259, JR 270 and JR 271 nad been dtsmtssed by the Apotrcantwttttout tust cause and excuse 4 JR 26% JR 270 and JR 271 are fixed to be heard together with this JR 268. 5. Alter the hearing I allowed me Applicants appttoations tn JR 268, JR 259. JR 270 and JR 271 i win now set out the grounds at my judgment Background Fact! 6, Tne Iecte Ieadtng to ma mtng 01.“? 268. JR 269, JR 270 and JR 271 are atrrtost tdenttcat and are adopted wttn andlar without modificauon from the parties’ written submissions and can be summarized as Ioltws: - 61 Tne Applicant ts a firm ot oonsuntng engineers and was appolnlsd by Prasarana Malaysia aarnad (Puuronn) to went on me Light Rail Transit Line 3 (western corrtdort Page 5 ms rn pznmrrrgyzzvuvnvtruvszo “None s.n.t luvthnrwm .. .r..a a may t... nflmnnttly mtmn dnuavtml VI nFtuNfl vtmxt l=rolecl (the um Prolm). A| lns malanal lama, MRCE- George Kent Sdn Ehd (IIRCB-GK or (he l.hen—PDFj was appolnled as me ‘Prolecl Dellvery Partner rasporlslble lorlhe management and supervlslarl of the LRT 3 Pmled’, albell the uluma|e owner ol Ihe LRT3 Fralecl was and ls the Malayslan Gnvernmenl, whlch malrllalned final aulhonxy over the same a.2 The 2"‘ Rsspondanl was specifically employed lo work on me slle cl lns LRT3 Prolool as a Resrdenl Englnaev. Llghl Hall Transll 3 —Wes1em corndor, lor a cwoyeav rlxed penod lrorn 3.7 zmv unlll 30 6.2019, wrm a oasrc salary ol RM le.oou.oo par rnonln 5.3. Follawlng me 14*" Geneml Electlons on 9.5.2015. me then- naw Malayslsn Gavemmarn lmplemanlad a revlew or all Isrgs» scale prolecls. mcluding the LRT3 Prolscl 5 4 MRCB-GK nsd rnslmaad |he Aoolrcanl [as well as all omar sub-conlractors lnvolved In me LRT3 Pmlecl) lo nold all reviews and approvals lor snoo drawrngs and submsslons and no stop overlime and sum umy one work as Thereafler. mere was an announcement lay me Mlnlstry ol Flnanee on 12.7.2013 lnax, wnrle lne LRT3 l=ro,ec1 would canllnue, there would be slgnlficanl changes made. lnoludlng rnleralla me Iollawlng 7 (a) the llmelme lor wmplellon of ms LRT3 Pmjecl was revlsed fram 2n2lJ to 2024. (bl more would be a naduclron In one overall oonslruollon size and design oi lne LRT [ram depot and LRT svalions due lo me change lvom 42 sets or scar lrarns lo 22 sels ora- canralns. and lol me oonslruchon omve slallons would be shelved and me 2km underground tunnel and underground stauan at Persraran Hisnammuddrn, snarl Alarn would be canoellad v... ; ans m pznmngyzzvuvnvuuvsm “None Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. o... w my r... nflmnullly mum: dnuavlml w. .nuna Wm! 5 6 The above cnanges eflecfively enrauea slgmficanl changes to and an overau reduclxm m scape, whereby me LRT3 Prorecn was changed mm a Prqecx Dclwary Farmer model ha a fixed pnce (Le. turnkey or ‘Design and Bum‘) contram 6 7 The various contractors mvmvad m the LRT3 PNJBCI ware Informed of the cos| re-new exercwse mvowing the Mvuslry er Finance we letters dated 2 7 2619 and 9.7.2018‘ whereby more aspects 0! me LRT3 Pmrect warn DIAI on hold or ummad enurely. venous rneenngs were also hem mn MRCE~GK w drscuss the ws| 0plimIsE|IDrI exemse, mcludmg mler aha Ihe ormssmn with: 51x Smllons. a.e. Around October zms, me anecme was given by MRCB»GK to oo\|o<;live\y mslmclure (ha LRT3 Frayed orgarusafion Chan and sue supemsron staff to supper! the new “Design and Build’ rnouer. ms meant me Apphcanfs organrsauon, wgexher vntn me other uexaneu Des-gn cone-man: mu noes) were expecied |o work with MRCBGK mm rewer s\af1 m/era“. s 9 Based on an 01 the above. the Avphcant ennuumed a revrew ohls szamng needs and reorganized the teams‘ where among other «rungs, me Me MAE‘ neanu were merged, and me ouamy Assurance‘ mncuon was transferred rmrn me Apphcam |u MRCBGK 61D.Funher and In add on to |he above, mere had been sugnincanx aerays In payment rrorn Mxcaeokr when were suosxannal rn namre and had eenousry slrarnad me Applicant‘: resources These delays nau amounted to saveml rnunens over a srgnmcann Ienglh or lime, and had prompled the Apphcant |o rngnngm to MRCE~GK |he extreme ermeumes m paying sva« assrgnea lo the LRT3 Project on mu Iple oocasmns. and were even repcrled m me news 611. The Apphcanl had cm of necessny Immemerlled a salary dalerment scnerne (or aw staff eammg above RM 5,000 on a month‘ sramng m as reuer dated 2132013 |e an sum as lallaws - ‘Ruennoe Vs made to mnlnwn nan melting on me 22 June mm and 21 Auwusx zara ;..nam rn pzemmgyzzvwnvurzvsza “Nana a.n.r lunhnrwm s. H... a my r... annnn-y am. dnuamnl VI mum war As dlscuued and agreed we nereoy wrifivm mat as a result oi curlan|markelm:idl\luri1 and ine deraun in Acmdulad Dlymlritl by our nrerer wants tria manaoenienr has In aitarna we out to lmplsmanla salary aelelmem exarsiseidrstart earning more tnan am: am a nrenin ‘ 512 Flowing lrnrn all oi trie above‘ lfl order to restructure its operations lollowino the cost-reduction directives of tne Malaysian Government and to meet the revtsed sodpe ol tne LRT3 vroiecti trie Applicant was necessarily required to reoonsldertts manpower requirements 613 Prernired on me loregolng, tne Applicants crriel Reside-it Engineer had assessed tne uanous employees under nie purview. and tne venous teams were restnrolured oased on lrie eliangas to the LRY3 Project 514 As a result, Slgnlficam changes were made‘ Including me merging of oorri Mes rearns into one and me lransfer of Quality Aesuranoe respdnsitaillties lronr the Applicant (under the PDP niodel) Io MRCB-GK [under me Design and Euild‘ rnedelt consequently, ten no) employees were lotmd to be redundant including 01:2" Respondent is 15 Not long after inst, lrie Apptroant had by way or a letter daled 29 3.2015 proceeded to lerrninete the 2“ Respondent lrorn his employment eilectrve on 3l.iu zoia, due to the primary reason trier the MRCE—GK lclient) has rnstmeled tne Aoolieantto partially rrold oertein ponions oirtie Projacl as part or tne Protect‘: cos! optirnizatron Semis: by the Malaysian soveninienr. 5 ls Dissatisfied with the termination, the 2"“ Respondent. togstrier witrt three other aflecled employees, trad lhereafler med a represerilalton o1 unlawful dismissal at me Industrial Rslalinns Department under seuion 20 or the Industrial Relations Act 1967, wnlon was trtereaiter relerred to me Industrial court by tne Honourable Minister M Human Resources lor adiudication. 6.17 Ferlmanllyi me 2"‘ Respondent‘: pleaded case was trier there was no genuine redundancy undenying trie decision to terminate ms services‘ whereby his positions and lunctions mucus ru ozemrrrgyzzvtlvnvunvszo “None s.ii.i luvlhnrwm is. u... a may i... aiirin.ii-r MIMI flnuavlml VI .riuno Wm! were stm tn extslenue Moreover, he asserted that me Apptrcant was not undergoing any nnanctat dtmountes wntcn requrred that ne he retrencned 5 Is. wrtn the agreement of all paruest all tour cases were neerd |oge|hev were tne tndustnat oeurt. 5.19. The tndustnal Conn subsequently proceeded to hand down tne tmpugned Award deted 22.4 2021 tmtdtrrg |hat Inc 2"” Respondent had been dtsmlssed wilhoul just cause or excuse and ordered tne Apphcanl |o paytne 2"‘ Respondenta hate: 0! RM moon on in back wages 5.20. The Appllcam. being dtssatisfied wttn tne tmpugned Award, Ihevsafler Nari the Instant appfinaltcn for judicial review, seekmg the wrtal inlervanhun Oflhls Honourable COLIN The grounds for just ‘II rvvlnw 7. Based on tne 5la|emenL tne Apphcanl seeks to cneuenqe the rndustriat court dectston based on the following grounds: - ‘M The! ma lnduslnal Conn had erred In {an and law when it rnrsapptted tne Iegat pnnctples germane lo redundancy and relmnchmam; specmcauyt when it erroneousty aonuuded tnat tne 2"'= Respondent‘: employment contract eeutd only be valtdly Iermmaled fulluwing tne edrnptetrun or tennmatran at the LRT3 Fmjacl‘ 7 2 ThalII1e|ndus(rIa|COIm nad erved In tact and taw when rt had cnnduded tnat a redundancy slluahon could nnly ans: upon the cancallslton or r we 0! the LRT3 Project: 7 3 That the tndustnat Conn had erred In tact and law and had taken rntn cansrderatuon trrelevent matters wnen tl had oancluded mat tne Anphcanl was requved to obtain the permrssron ul Presarana end/or MRCEVGK to temnnate the servtce oi the 2“ Rasvnndent »..u.,ru rn pznmnrgyzzvwnvuuvsza “Nate s.n.t luvthnrwm r. u... e my r... nrwtnuflly MIMI dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 7.4 The indusuriai court erred in Ierms or facts wnen n icund inai me ccsi review camed oul by me Maiaysran Government nad ndi yet been made an ine dale oi lerrmnahon 01 me 2"“ Respondents SBNIDG, whereby the indusinei cdun iaiied lo |ake mlo aoeouni me conienis oi ine Ministry 0! Finances press release daied 127 2015 announcing the various measures to reduce me casl and scope otme LRT3 Proieci: The lndusilial coun erred in fact when il iaiied to give due oonsiderallnri mine rnaienai and undispuied vests, speafically me measures to reduce me cost and scope oi the LRT3 Pmied announced by the Ministry on Finance, which had resuiied In a vedualon in me Applicanfs pereonnei requirernenis: 76 Tne indusirial Courl erred in terms oflacts when ii med (0 give due aonsideralion Io Ihe malenal fact mat aiincugn some cnne hmclmns and Iasks mine 2" Respondenl as a Residwil Engirieerdld nut sippi ine change mine scope and oornpienen daia at me LRT3 Prciecl means that me said runcnons and (asks oouid be periormed by me ramaimng Residerfl Engrneer and accordingiy, ii is rim disputed that one Iwo posiucns (including me velevaril iuncncns and vasksi were combined and perionned by a eingie Residanl Engineer, and 7.7. The irrdusinai Ocurl erred wnen ii railed to give due cansidaralmn lo the maienai iaci inai ma selection process used bylhe Applicant was lairand appropnaie because an me employees were engaged on fixed ienn oonuacis. ine assessrneni was oamiucted by me cniei Resrdeni Engineer and the seiecimn was based on me areas and iunciidns aiiecied by me reduced scape oi me LRT3 Prqecl Tho uw 8 Judiaai Revrew is eneraily concerned with the decision making process where me mpugned decision is flawed on me ground oi prooedurai impropriely. me In al is ru pzemngyzzvuvnvuuvsm «nu. s.n.i luvihnrwm a. met! a my r... unmnniily MIMI dnuaviml VI .nune Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-29PB-508-07/2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMANPUBLIC BANK BERHADPENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMANMUZAFRINA BINTI SAGI RAHMAD

Sama ada KPI telah melaksanakan budi bicara di bawah seksyen 33A Akta Tersebut dengan sewajarnya apabila mengeluarkan notis niat untuk mengeluarkan sijil pelepasan bankrap menurut seksyen 33A? Sama ada KPI telah mentadbir estet si bankrap dengan sewajarnya- Sama ada permohonan JC untuk menghalang Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi dari mengeluarkan sijil pelepasan Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi selama 2 tahun menurut seksyen 33B Akta Insolvensi 1967 wajar dibenarkan

15/01/2024

Tuan Arun A/L Noval Dass

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=025584de-1099-49ce-9049-65a7a9a3d0b6&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA DALAM PASCA KEBANKRAPAN NO.JA-29PB-508-07/2023 PUBLIC BANK BERHAD … PEMOHON 1. KETUA PENGARAH INSOLVENSI MALAYSIA 2. MUZAFRINA BINTI SAGI RAHMAD … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15/01/2024 14:40:24 JA-29PB-508-07/2023 Kand. 16 S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Pengenalan 1. Responden Kedua yang merupakan Penghutang Penghakiman dalam kes ini (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai JD) telah memasuki Perjanjian Sewa Beli dengan Pemohon (Pemiutang Penghakiman) (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai JC) untuk menyewa beli sebuah kenderaan Proton Waja. JD telah memungkiri Perjanjian Sewa Beli tersebut. 2. JC memasukkan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran terhadap JD pada 16.11.2005. Lanjutan itu, JC telah memulakan tindakan kebankrapan terhadap JD dan Perintah Penerimaan dan Perintah Penghukuman telah direkodkan terhadap JD pada 21.11.2007. JC memfailkan Borang Bukti Hutang di Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia pada 5.2.2008 bagi jumlah RM37,207.69 setakat 21.11.2007. 3. Pemohon menerima Notis Tentang Niat bertarikh 15.2.2023 untuk mengeluarkan Perakuan Pelepasan Bankrap daripada kebankrapannya dari Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Malaysia (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai KPI) pada 6.3.2023. 4. JC kemudiannya telah menyerahkan Notis Bantahan bertarikh 16.3.2023 bagi membantah Notis Niat yang dikeluarkan oleh KPI. Melalui surat bertarikh 27.6.2023, JC telah dimaklumkan bahawa KPI menolak bantahan JC antara lain bagi alasan-alasan berikut:- (a) Kes telah ditadbir selama 15 tahun; (b) Tiada aduan daripada pempetisyen/pemiutang mengenai apa-apa kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh bankrap; dan (c) Pentadbiran kes yang selanjutnya tidak akan mendatangkan faedah kepada estet kebankrapan serta membazirkan wang awam. S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 5. Maka, JC memfailkan permohonan di Mahkamah ini pada 25.7.2023 bagi menghalang KPI dari mengeluarkan Perakuan Pelepasan KPI menurut seksyen 33B(4) Akta Insolvensi 1967 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Akta Tersebut) yang menjadi subjek pertikaian di hadapan Mahkamah ini. Analisis dan keputusan 6. Dalam hujahan bertulis KPI, merujuk seksyen 33A(1) Akta Tersebut, KPI berhujah bahawa KPI sebagai pentadbir kes kebankrapan mempunyai kuasa budi bicara untuk melepaskan seseorang bankrap melalui Sijil Pelepasan KPI. Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 33A Akta Tersebut yang memperuntukkan bahawa:- “(1) The Director General of Insolvency may, in his discretion but subject to section 33B, issue a certificate discharging a bankrupt from bankruptcy. (2) The Director General of Insolvency shall not issue a certificate discharging a bankrupt from bankruptcy under subsection (1) unless a period of five years has lapsed since the date of the bankruptcy order. (3) Notice of every discharge under subsection (1) shall be given by the Director General of Insolvency to the Registrar and the Director General of Insolvency shall advertise the notice in a local newspaper as prescribed…” 7. Sebagaimana diperuntukkan dalam seksyen tersebut, tiada sebarang garis panduan tertentu yang perlu diikuti KPI dalam menjalankan kuasa budi bicara beliau dalam memutuskan untuk mengeluarkan Perakuan Pelepasan Ketua Pengarah, melainkan keperluan untuk hanya memastikan pentadbiran kebankrapan telah dilaksanakan selama sekurang-kurangnya 5 tahun. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah dalam kes Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Bassanio Teo Yang [2009] MLJU 313; [2009] 9 CLJ 413; [2009] 2 MLRH 668; [2009] AMEJ 0407 memutuskan bahawa:- S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 “[11] Very interestingly, unlike s. 33 under which a bankrupt seeks reprieve from the bankruptcy, s. 33A does not provide any guideline for the DGI to consider in granting a discharge. The only precondition is that five years must have elapsed since the commencement of the bankruptcy…” 8. Namun, dalam menjalankan kuasa budi bicara tersebut, KPI dibimbing oleh Garis Panduan Jabatan. Perkara ini ada dijelaskan dalam kes Re Endon Tamseran; Ex P Parkash Singh Wasawa Singh [2009] 8 CLJ 379; [2009] 2 MLRH 200 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “[13] In this case the KP JIM purportedly exercised his discretionary powers under s. 33A(1) of the Act to discharge the bankrupt of her bankruptcy. Here the KP's powers is also unfettered, subject only to the rights of the creditors to object. He is guided by his standard Departmental Guidelines…” 9. Malah, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa walaupun Akta Tersebut memberi kuasa budi bicara kepada KPI dalam memutuskan sama ada untuk mengeluarkan sijil pelepasan di bawah seksyen 33A Akta Tersebut, namun dalam menjalankan kuasa budi bicara ini, KPI seharusnya bertindak secara munasabah dalam membuat keputusan tersebut setelah mengambil kira keseluruhan fakta kes di hadapan beliau. Dalam menjelaskan prinsip ini, Mahkamah dalam kes Re Benny Ong Swee Siang; Ex P United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd [2016] 8 MLJ 805; [2016] 3 CLJ 1001; [2015] MLRHU 1107 memutuskan bahawa:- “[19] From my reading of ss. 33A and 33B of the Bankruptcy Act 1967, the DGI does not have the absolute discretion to issue the certificate of discharge. The DGI's exercise of the discretion is plainly subjected to the provisions in s. 33B. It must be made judiciously depending on the circumstances of each case. In the Supreme Court case of Savrimuthu Sinnapan v. PP [1987] 1 CLJ 368; [1987]CLJ (Rep) 322; [1987] 2 MLJ 173, Salleh Abas LP held that public interest, reason and justice demand that any statutory power must be exercised reasonably and with due consideration.” S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 10. Berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip ini, Mahkamah akan mengkaji fakta kes di hadapan Mahkamah. KPI dalam hujahan bertulis berhujah bahawa walaupun JD masih lagi berhutang kepada JC dan JC tidak menerima apa-apa bayaran dividen daripada KPI, namun jumlah yang masih terhutang adalah bukan satu-satunya faktor yang harus diberikan pemberatan. Dalam hal ini, KPI merujuk kepada kes Re Mohana Sundari M Subramaniam Ex P United Prime Corporation Bhd [2004] 5 MLJ 227; [2004] 1 CLJ 624; [2003] 3 MLRH 719 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “I am also of the view that the amount of the debt still owing to the creditor is not a factor which the court should place too much reliance on when considering an application to be discharged from bankruptcy. In the case of Re Siah Ooi Choe ex p Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (supra) the court held on this point inter alia as follows: With reference to the size of the debt, the Court agreed that it was a very big one, but there was no upper limit set by the Act beyond which discharge was barred. The huge amount of debt here merely reflected the fact that a big business when it failed, tended to fail in a big way and it was in recognition of this fact that no maximum amount was stipulated in the Act. …Based on this reasoning, I take the view that as the Act does not stipulate an upper limit beyond which discharge is barred, the fact that the debt owed by the judgment debtor is a big one should not be given too much weight if any at all.” 11. Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan KPI bahawa faktor ketiadaan pembayaran dividen kepada JC tidak seharusnya diberi penekanan yang tinggi oleh Mahkamah ini. Namun, ini tidak bermakna bahawa KPI seharusnya mengabaikan faktor ini secara keseluruhan dalam mempertimbangkan permohonan JC. Dalam hal ini, KPI perlu mengimbangi hak kedua-dua pihak dan perlu mengambil kira kesemua fakta kes di hadapan beliau sebelum membuat keputusan sebagaimana diputuskan dalam kes Mayban Finance Bhd v Lee Kee Sen [2014] 10 CLJ 543; [2013] MLRHU 454 seperti berikut:- S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 “...Again, like the judgment creditor's counsel, the cases cited by Puan Zalina ie, Re Mohana 's case (supra ) and Public Bank Bhd v. Kok Lee Wah [2005] 5 CLJ 212; [2004] 4 MLJ 433 concern applications for discharge filed by the bankrupts themselves and there were evidence before the court that the bankruptcy were brought about by factors beyond their control. As Zulkefli J said in Mohana 's case (supra ) in considering the application for such a discharge, factors to be considered by the court are the report of the Official Assignee, the cause of the bankrupt's insolvency, his conduct relevant to it and subsequent to his insolvency as well as the interests of the public at large and commercial morality. However, this application being made by the DGI, not the bankrupt, the former bears the burden of justifying that the discharge is warranted and just in the circumstances of the case. What is just must be to achieve a delicate balance between the interests of the bankrupt to free himself from the chains of bankruptcy and the right of the judgment creditor, including his other creditors to receive the judgment sum.” 12. Dalam membuat imbangan ini, Mahkamah tidak menafikan bahawa tempoh pentadbiran estet si bankrap adalah salah satu faktor yang perlu diambil kira oleh KPI dalam memutuskan isu sama ada sijil pelepasan KPI wajar dikeluarkan. Dalam hal ini, KPI merujuk kepada kes Re Mohana Sundari (supra) dan kes Re Ang Ah Kang [1993] MLJU 656; [1994] 2 CLJ 738; [1993] 4 MLRH 488 untuk menyokong hujahan beliau. 13. Namun, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa tempoh pentadbiran estet tersebut tidak wajar dilihat secara isolasi dan wajar dipertimbangkan secara kumulatif dengan faktor-faktor lain yang turut dipertimbangkan dalam kes-kes tersebut. Dalam kes Re Mohana Sundari (supra) umpamanya, di samping mempertimbangkan usia si bankrap telah mencecah 45 tahun pada masa yang material, Mahkamah turut S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 mempertimbangkan bahawa JD telah menjadi penjamin kepada ayah beliau semasa berusia 25 tahun dan sedang menyumbang RM250.00 sebulan pada setiap bulan walaupun hanya memperolehi pendapatan RM500.00 sebulan. Perkara ini dapat dilihat dalam penghakiman Mahkamah seperti berikut:- “…In the present case when the judgment debtor applied for her discharge from bankruptcy, the senior assistant registrar increased her monthly instalments from RM250 to RM300 arbitrarily without first conducting an investigation into the affairs of the judgment debtor to determine if the judgment debtor was in a position to comply with the Order. It is my finding that with the judgment debtor's monthly income of RM500 it is definitely not sufficient to justify such an increase. It is noteworthy that the judgment debtor has made an effort to satisfy her creditors by earning an honest living. It is also to be noted that on the judgment debtor's application to court for a discharge from bankruptcy, after enduring almost 14 years of the same… As to the circumstances that have led her into bankruptcy, it is clear that she was asked to sign guarantees by her father at an age of 25. Being only 25 years of age at the time, the bankrupt must have been influenced by her father into signing the guarantees. These extenuating circumstances have placed the judgment debtor in an unusually adverse position…” 14. Maka, Mahkamah dalam kes tersebut telah mengambil kira keseluruhan fakta kes tersebut secara kumulatif, bersesama faktor usia si bankrap dan tempoh estet tersebut ditadbir semasa membuat permohonan untuk pelepasan di Mahkamah. Secara jelas, si bankrap tersebut telah menyumbang sekurang-kurangnya RM250 setiap bulan sebelum membuat permohonan tersebut. S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 15. Dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah, tiada rekod yang menunjukkan bahawa JD pernah menyumbang apa-apa sumbangan dalam penyelesaian hutang beliau. Sebagaimana dihujahkan KPI, baki kredit estet JD setakat 21.9.2023 adalah sebanyak RM1,985.84 sahaja. Dengan ketiadaan sebarang pembayaran dividen kepada JC, adalah selamat untuk Mahkamah membuat anggapan bahawa jumlah tersebut terhasil melalui deposit RM2,000.00 (di bawah kaedah 102(1) Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017) yang telah didepositkan oleh JC semasa memfailkan Petisyen Pemiutang, tanpa apa-apa sumbangan dari JD. 16. Seterusnya, dalam kes Re Ang Ah Kang (supra) pula, di samping mengambil kira usia si bankrap, Mahkamah turut telah mengambil kira fakta bahawa si bankrap telah menyumbang RM60 setiap bulan kepada estetnya dan telah menyumbang RM67,584.62 setakat lewat 1990. Disamping itu, pemiutang dalam kes tersebut telah menerima RM30,000.00 hasil jualan harta yang dicagarkan. Maka, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa jumlah yang dibayar adalah hampir RM200,000.00 iaitu melebihi amaun pokok dan si bankrap hanya belum membayar faedah yang terakru. Maka, prinsip kes tersebut perlu dilihat dalam konteks latar belakang fakta yang dinyatakan di sini. Maka, tempoh pentadbiran estet JD semata-mata tidak seharusnya dijadikan faktor tunggal atau penentu dalam keputusan KPI dalam mengeluarkan sijil pelepasan di bawah seksyen 33A Akta Tersebut. S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 17. Seterusnya, Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Re Rajangam Marimuthu Mudalliar; Ex P-Parkash Singh Wasama Singh [2010] 3 CLJ 858; [2009] 3 MLRH 758 yang dirujuk KPI untuk berhujah bahawa pentadbiran kes yang selanjutnya tidak akan mendatangkan faedah kepada estet kebankrapan. Dalam kes tersebut, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “By now the bankrupt would have been about 65 years old. Admittedly, at that age he is more a liability than an asset now. He was last employed as a security guard before his bankruptcy. Obviously, he was uneducated...Equally, by now his bankruptcy would have lasted for more than 22 years. In my view on the uncontroverted facts, it would serve no purpose whatsoever to prolong his bankruptcy any further. He could no longer contribute effectively to the estate even if the KP could now catch up with him based on the information given by the applicant. The Act was enacted not with the object of punishing him for his failure to comply with the terms of the judgment sum nor was Jabatan Insolvensi created to act as the applicant's debt collector.” 18. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa Mahkamah dalam kes tersebut membuat keputusan bahawa pentadbiran kes yang selanjutnya tidak akan mendatangkan faedah kepada estet kebankrapan berdasarkan fakta bahawa usia JD telah mencecah 65 tahun dan dalam usia sedemikian, sekiranyapun JD dapat ditemui, JD tidak dapat menyumbang secara efektif kepada estet kebankrapannya. Namun, fakta kes di hadapan Mahkamah wajar dibezakan dengan fakta kes tersebut. Sebagaimana dihujahkan JC dalam hujahan bertulisnya, disamping fakta bahawa JD bukan merupakan penjamin sosial dan berdasarkan rekod kad pengenalan hanya berusia 49 tahun, tiada keterangan di hadapan Mahkamah bahawa JD tergolong dalam golongan kurang upaya atau mempunyai masalah kesihatan yang kronik. S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 19. Berdasarkan fakta kes ini, kes Lee Kee Sen (supra) adalah lebih sesuai untuk diikuti Mahkamah di mana dalam memutuskan pelepasan JD yang berusia 48 tahun dalam kes tersebut, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “Puan Zalina submitted that he was made a bankrupt because as a director, he stood guarantor for his company and the economic recession in 1997 caused the company not to settle its debt. He is currently 48 years of age, with two school young children, a wife who is not working (and also a bankrupt) and working with a company as senior technical supervisor, earning only RM2,600 per month. Therefore, she said he cannot be expected to continue paying the monthly contribution of RM300. [7] Precisely for the reason that he is still relatively young and with a steady employment that I think that he should continue to honour the obligation to pay his debts even though the bankruptcy may not be totally his fault but contributed to by the state of the economy.” 20. Mahkamah turut bersetuju dengan hujahan JC bahawa tiada keterangan di hadapan Mahkamah bahawa KPI telah melaksanakan sebarang tindakan administratif menurut Akta Tersebut, antara lain memanggil mesyuarat pemiutang menurut seksyen 15 Akta Tersebut, menghubungi JD untuk menyelesaikan penyata hal ehwal menurut seksyen 16 Akta Tersebut, memohon pemeriksaan awam JD menurut seksyen 17 Akta Tersebut mahupun mengisytiharkan sebarang dividen kepada pemiutang. Perkara-perkara ini menunjukkan bahawa pernyataan KPI bahawa kes ini telah ditadbir selama 15 tahun tidak disokong dengan sebarang keterangan di hadapan Mahkamah. Malah, estet si bankrap adalah estet yang tidak ditadbir dengan sewajarnya (unadministered estate) sebagaimana diputuskan dalam kes Re Benny Ong (supra) di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 “[22] In the circumstances, this is the situation of an unadministered estate in bankruptcy by reason that the procedures such as meeting of creditors, public examination of debtor and other administrative tasks as laid down in ss.15 to 17 and 40 to 69 of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 have not yet been undertaken to date. This can easily be contrasted with the s. 33A case of Re Endon Tamseran; Ex p Parkash Singh Wasawa Singh (supra ) relied by the DGI where all the assets of the bankrupt who was then 65 years old had been realised and there was no longer any more contribution pursuant to the administration of the estate.” 21. Dalam hal ini, Afidavit KPI adalah senyap berkenaan usaha-usaha yang diambil untuk mengesan JD bagi tujuan pemfailan Penyata Hal Ehwal yang merupakan langkah pertama sebelum tindakan administratif lain dapat dilaksanakan seperti mengadakan Mesyuarat Pemiutang atau menjalankan Pemeriksaan Awam. Mahkamah sekali lagi merujuk kepada kes Re Benny Ong (supra) di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa:- “ I am thus not satisfied that the DGI has utilised all reasonable endeavours to locate him including making internet searches in this modern day of information technology. From the evidence adduced, the DGI has merely written two letters to the JD, to wit: once in 1999 and again in 2012. No other attempts were made to procure his attendance at the Insolvency Department.” 22. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Public Bank Berhad v Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi & Satu Lagi [2023] MLJU 186; [2023] MLRHU 80 di mana Mahkamah ini dalam kes tersebut telah dirujuk dengan “Arahan Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Bil.13/2016- Garis Panduan Kriteria Pertimbangan dan Syarat-Syarat Pelepasan Bankrap melalui Sijil Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi” bertarikh 18.8.2016. Secara spesifik, Mahkamah merujuk kepada garis panduan tersebut yang membolehkan KPI mengeluarkan Sijil Pelepasan di bawah seksyen 33A Akta Tersebut sekiranya kes tersebut adalah kes dormant. Dalam menjelaskan tindakan-tindakan yang sewajarnya diambil KPI sebelum memutuskan kes tersebut sebagai dormant, garis panduan tersebut memperuntukkan bahawa:- S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “(vi) Kes dormant Sesuatu kes kebankrapan boleh dikategorikan sebagai dormant jika:  Kes telah ditadbir bagi tempoh lima belas tahun (15) selepas tarikh Perintah Penerimaan dan Perintah Penghukuman; dan  Bankrap tidak dapat dikesan bagi tempoh tujuh (7) tahun berturut- turut dengan syarat Cawangan telah mengambil tindakan-tindakan berikut terlebih dahulu:  Cawangan dikehendaki memastikan maklumat terkini bankrap telah diperolehi daripada Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN), Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN),Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan (JPJ), Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja (KWSP), Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya (SPR) dan juga Pempetisyen; dan  Cawangan hendaklah mengesan bankrap sekurang- kurangnya sekali melalui Pos Berdaftar;” 23. Mahkamah dalam kes ini telah meneliti dengan cermat kertas kausa dan hujahan yang difailkan KPI dan Mahkamah dapati tiada sebarang keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa KPI telah mengambil langkah- langkah untuk mengesan JD melalui maklumat yang diperolehi dari agensi-agensi kerajaan mahupun mengesan JD melalui surat. Maka, jikapun KPI bergantung kepada fakta bahawa kes telah ditadbir selama 15 tahun, tiada keterangan di hadapan Mahkamah yang menunjukkan bahawa KPI telah mengikuti garis panduannya sendiri sebelum membuat keputusan untuk mengeluarkan sijil pelepasan di bawah seksyen 33A Akta Tersebut. S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 24. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada deposisi JC dalam perenggan 12 Afidavit Balasan JC bahawa KPI masih tidak menjalankan Mesyuarat Pemiutang sebagaimana dikehendaki di bawah seksyen 15 Akta Tersebut. Tiada sebarang penafian dibuat KPI dalam Afidavit Balasan mahupun hujahan bertulis berkenaan deposisi JC ini, maka fakta ini dianggap tidak disangkal oleh KPI (rujuk kes Ng Hee Thong & Anor v Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 CLJ 609; [1995] 1 MLRA 48; [1995] 1 AMR 622). Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 15(2) Akta Tersebut yang perlu dibaca bersama Jadual A kepada Akta Tersebut yang memperuntukkan prosedur perjalanan Mesyuarat Pemiutang. 25. Menurut perenggan 2(b) kepada Jadual A, KPI perlu menyaman kesemua pemiutang yang dinyatakan dalam Penyata Hal Ehwal JD, Pemiutang yang telah memfailkan Bukti Hutang mereka dan si bankrap untuk Mesyuarat Pemiutang yang Pertama. Pada asalnya, perenggan 1 kepada Jadual A memperuntukkan bahawa:- “1. The first meeting of creditors shall be summoned for a day not later than two months in the case of a bankrupt’s petition, or three months in the case of a creditor’s petition, after the date of the bankruptcy order, unless the court, for any special reason, deems it expedient that the meeting be summoned for a later day.” 26. Namun, pindaan telah dibuat kepada Jadual A melalui Akta Insolvensi (Pindaan) 2023 yang berkuatkuasa pada 6.10.2023, di mana perenggan 1 kepada Jadual yang antara lain menghendaki KPI mengadakan Mesyuarat Pemiutang Pertama dalam tempoh 3 bulan dari tarikh Perintah Kebankrapan melalui Petisyen Pemiutang telah dipadam (deleted). S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 27. Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa anggapan wujud bahawa sebarang pindaan kepada peruntukan undang-undang berkuatkuasa prospektif sekiranya melibatkan isu substantif dan berkuatkuasa kebelakangan (retrospektif) sekiranya melibatkan isu prosedur, melainkan dinyatakan sebaliknya secara ekspress dalam perundangan tersebut. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Dalip Bhagwan Singh v PP [1998] 1 MLJ 1; [1997] 4 CLJ 645; [1997] 1 MLRA 653; [1997] 4 AMR 4029 memutuskan bahawa:- "In respect of legislation on substantive law, there is a rule of presumption that it is not retrospective in operation in the absence of a contrary intention by express words or by necessary implication. Conversely, in respect of legislation on evidence or procedure, the presumption is that it is retrospective in operation in the absence of a contrary intention, unless, the application of such legislation deprives a person of a vested right and offends art.7(1) of the Federal Constitution." 28. Dalam hal ini, seksyen 17 Akta Insolvensi (Pindaan) 2023 dengan jelas memperuntukkan bahawa:- “Notwithstanding sections 15 and 16, any proceedings, actions or other matters required to be done under the principal Act which are still pending immediately before the coming into operation of this Act shall be continued or concluded under the principal Act as if the principal Act had not been amended by this Act.” 29. Maka, Akta Insolvensi (Pindaan) 2023 secara ekspress menyatakan bahawa sebarang tindakan yang perlu dilaksanakan menurut Akta Prinsipal (yang termasuk mengadakan Mesyuarat Pemiutang menurut seksyen 15 Akta Tersebut) yang masih tertunggak semasa Akta Pindaan mula berkuatkuasa, perlu diteruskan seolah-olah Akta Prinsipal Tersebut tidak dipinda. S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 30. Dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah, memandangkan Perintah Penerimaan dan Perintah Penghukuman telah direkodkan pada 21.11.2007 dan semasa permohonan JC dalam lampiran 1 difailkan pada 25.7.2023, keperluan mengadakan mesyuarat pemiutang pertama dalam tempoh 3 bulan dari tarikh Perintah Penerimaan dan Perintah Penghukuman masih tertunggak, maka permohonan JC perlu diteruskan seolah-olah Akta Prinsipal tersebut tidak dipinda. 31. Memandangkan KPI masih belum memanggil mesyuarat pemiutang pertama dalam tempoh masa yang diperuntukkan dalam Jadual A, KPI perlu memfailkan permohonan di Mahkamah untuk mendapatkan perintah perlanjutan masa menurut Kaedah 208(4) Kaedah-kaedah Insolvensi 2017. Dalam hal ini, kertas-kertas kausa yang difailkan KPI adalah senyap berkenaan alasan kelewatan memanggil Mesyuarat Pemiutang Pertama dan sama ada sebarang tindakan susulan diambil untuk mendapatkan perintah lanjutan masa dari Mahkamah. Penjelasan KPI adalah penting untuk Mahkamah menilai sama ada kes kebankrapan JD telah ditadbir dengan sewajarnya memandangkan 16 tahun telah berlalu dari tarikh Perintah Penerimaan dan Perintah Penghukuman diperintahkan terhadap JD namun isu Mesyuarat Pemiutang Pertama yang perlu dilaksanakan dalam tempoh tiga bulan dari tarikh Perintah Penerimaan dan Perintah Penghukuman masih belum dilaksanakan. 32. Tanpa mengambil kira klausa pengecualian (saving clause) tersebut, Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa pindaan tersebut tidak membawa maksud bahawa KPI boleh melengah-lengahkan S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Mesyuarat Pemiutang Pertama yang perlu diadakan menurut seksyen 15(2) Akta Tersebut. Seksyen 54(2) Akta Tafisiran 1948 dan 1967 dengan jelas memperuntukkan bahawa sekiranya sesuatu statut tidak menetapkan tempoh masa tertentu membuat sesuatu tindakan, maka tindakan tersebut perlu dilaksanakan pada kesegeraan yang praktik. Dalam menjelaskan prinsip ini, Mahkamah dalam kes Yap Chung Chong v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2022] MLJU 2966; [2022] 1 LNS 2715 memutuskan bahawa:- “[7] When no time period is prescribed in legislation, reference is madeto subsection 54(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 which states: "54. (2) Where no time is prescribed within which anything shall bedone, that thing shall be done with all convenient speed and as often as the prescribed occasion arises." [Emphasis added] [8] Subsection 54(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 provides that when there is no time prescribed in a peace of legislation, anything shall be done with all convenient speed. What then does all convenient speed entail? To answerthis question, this court alluded to authorities. Reference was made to the caseof Chua Kian Voon v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 747. [9] From the cases cited, the question of whether there has been a delay or otherwise; whether it was done with all convenient speed is a matter of facts…” 33. Dalam kes ini, adalah tidak munasabah bagi KPI untuk masih tidak mengadakan Mesyuarat Pemiutang yang Pertama sebagaimana dikehendaki menurut Akta Tersebut tanpa sebarang alasan yang munasabah, walaupun KPI mendakwa telah mentadbir estet JD selama 15 tahun. S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 34. Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa prosedur Pemeriksaan Awam JD juga memainkan peranan penting dalam pentadbiran estet JD sebagaimana diputuskan Mahkamah dalam kes Lee Aik Chong v Perdana Merchant Bankers Bhd [2014] 8 CLJ 509; [2013] MLRHU 1085; [2014] 2 AMR 64 seperti berikut:- “[20] During such examination, any creditor who has tendered a proof of debt or his representative authorised in writing may question the bankrupt concerning his affairs and conduct. The DGI shall also take part in the examination. The court may also put such question to the bankrupt as it thinks expedient. The bankrupt shall be examined upon oath, and it shall be his duty to answer all such questions as the court puts or allow to be put to him. [21] An examination of the bankrupt may be followed by the process of discovery of the bankrupt's property under s. 31 of the said Act where the bankrupt's wife (or husband) or any person known or suspected to have in his possession any of the estate or effects belonging to the bankrupt or supposed to be indebted to the bankrupt or any person whom the court deems capable of giving information respecting the bankrupt, his dealings or property may be summoned before the court.” 35. Sebagaimana dinyatakan terdahulu, tiada sebarang keterangan di hadapan Mahkamah bahawa pemeriksaan awam terhadap JD telah dilaksanakan KPI dalam tempoh pentadbiran estet JD. 36. Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah tidak seharusnya mengabaikan fakta bahawa JD yang bertanggungjawab menyelesaikan hutang JC tidak pernah mengambil sebarang inisiatif untuk menyelesaikan hutang tersebut dan sekiranya permohonan JC tidak dibenarkan Mahkamah, maka JC akan dihalang oleh had masa untuk mengambil sebarang tindakan pelaksanaan yang lain. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah dalam kes Re Benny Ong (supra) memutuskan bahawa:- S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 “[23] That notwithstanding, I also took into consideration the plight of the JC in that there has been no recovery of the judgment debt to date from the JD which ought to have been the dividends paid out from the realisation of the assets ofthe JD. If the certificate of discharge is issued, the JD gets off scot-free. It is also too late in the day for the JC to seek other modes of enforcement of judgment pursuant to O. 45 to 52 of the Rules of Court 2012 by virtue of the Limitation Act 1953. [24] In the premises, I find it is just and expedient that the appeal should be allowed. Accordingly the DGI should forthwith procure the attendance of the bankrupt JD and commence the administration of the estate in bankruptcy.” 37. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa sekiranya keputusan KPI dikekalkan walaupun JD tidak membuat sebarang pembayaran terhadap hutang pemiutang, dan tiada merit yang mewajarkan pelepasan JD menurut seksyen 33A Akta Tersebut, maka keputusan tersebut akan bertentangan dengan moraliti komersil sebagaimana diputuskan dalam kes Lim Hun Swee v Malaysia British Assurance Bhd & Ors and Other Appeals [2011] 2 MLJ 218; [2010] 8 CLJ 680; [2010] 2 MLRA 392; [2011] 1 AMCR 157 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa:- "The public as well as commercial players should not be imbued with the perception that a person can easily borrow money (even in big amount) from financial institutions or create debts with other business creditors, then stash the money away, whether in his own name or any other persons and need not be repaid; then personally apply for a bankruptcy order against him (as in the present case) and after a short period apply for an order for a discharge with a minimum or too little dividend to be paid to the creditors, and after the discharge he can enjoy a luxury life. If this practice and perception is not checked, then commercial morality would decline. In this type of fiasco, the court and the DGI should be blamed for not carrying out their duties effectively under the bankruptcy law.". S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 38. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan JC bahawa KPI masih belum mentadbir estet si bankrap dengan sewajarnya. Maka, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa KPI tidak melaksanakan budi bicara di bawah seksyen 33A Akta Tersebut dengan sewajarnya apabila mengeluarkan notis niat untuk mengeluarkan sijil pelepasan menurut seksyen 33A. Kesimpulan: 39. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah dengan ini membenarkan permohonan JC untuk menghalang KPI dari mengeluarkan sijil pelepasan Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi selama 2 tahun menurut seksyen 33B(6)(b) Akta Tersebut dari 15.1.2024 sehingga 14.1.2026. Mahkamah menggunakan budi bicara untuk tidak membuat sebarang perintah terhadap kos. Bertarikh: 15 Januari 2024 Disediakan oleh, …………………………………. ARUN A/L NOVAL DASS Timbalan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Johor Bahru S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Pihak-pihak: 1. Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia Cawangan Johor Bahru Tingkat 12, Menara Tabung Haji, Jalan Ayer Molek, 80720 Johor Bahru, Johor … Puan Jumsah Binti Suratman dan Encik Abdul Muqsit Bin Sani 2. Tetuan Rodziah And Company Peguamcara Pemohon/ Pemiutang Penghakiman No.30, Tingkat Satu, Jalan Datuk Kapten Ahmad, 86000 Kluang, Johor (Ruj: RC/MSG/20261/05/JU) ... Encik Noorul Ameen Bin Abdul Salam/ Puan Juliana S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Kes-kes yang dirujuk: 1. Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Bassanio Teo Yang [2009] MLJU 313; [2009] 9 CLJ 413; [2009] 2 MLRH 668; [2009] AMEJ 0407 2. Re Endon Tamseran; Ex P Parkash Singh Wasawa Singh [2009] 8 CLJ 379; [2009] 2 MLRH 200 3. Re Benny Ong Swee Siang; Ex P United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd [2016] 8 MLJ 805; [2016] 3 CLJ 1001; [2015] MLRHU 1107 4. Re Mohana Sundari M Subramaniam Ex P United Prime Corporation Bhd [2004] 5 MLJ 227; [2004] 1 CLJ 624; [2003] 3 MLRH 719 5. Re Ang Ah Kang [1993] MLJU 656; [1994] 2 CLJ 738; [1993] 4 MLRH 488 6. Re Rajangam Marimuthu Mudalliar; Ex P-Parkash Singh Wasama Singh [2010] 3 CLJ 858; [2009] 3 MLRH 758 7. Public Bank Berhad v Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi & Satu Lagi [2023] MLJU 186; [2023] MLRHU 80 8. Ng Hee Thong & Anor v Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 CLJ 609; [1995] 1 MLRA 48; [1995] 1 AMR 622 9. Dalip Bhagwan Singh v PP [1998] 1 MLJ 1; [1997] 4 CLJ 645; [1997] 1 MLRA 653; [1997] 4 AMR 4029 10. Yap Chung Chong v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2022] MLJU 2966; [2022] 1 LNS 2715 11. Lee Aik Chong v Perdana Merchant Bankers Bhd [2014] 8 CLJ 509; [2013] MLRHU 1085; [2014] 2 AMR 64 12. Lim Hun Swee v Malaysia British Assurance Bhd & Ors and Other Appeals [2011] 2 MLJ 218; [2010] 8 CLJ 680; [2010] 2 MLRA 392; [2011] 1 AMCR 157 S/N 3oRVApkQzkmQSWWnqaPQtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM PASCA KEBANKRAPAN NO.JA-29PB-508-07/2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Kesimpulan: Bertarikh: 15 Januari 2024 Pihak-pihak: 2. Tetuan Rodziah And Company

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24C-55-08/2023

PEMOHON AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN TERA VA SDN. BHD.

2 originating summonses.Setting aside OS is dismissed.The enforcement OS is allowed.A total cost of RM10,000.00 subject to allocatur shall be paid by TV to AB accordingly.

15/01/2024

YA Puan Sumathi a/p Murugiah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e40a87fe-49f9-41d8-90da-d112c2edf1e1&Inline=true

2nd Draft - Tera Va v Ayam Bintang.pdf 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24C-55-08/2023 BETWEEN AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD. (Company No. : 201701018136 [123301-A]) AND TERA VA SDN. BHD. DANT (Company No. : 201101001113 [929247-P]) (HEARD TOGETHER WITH) IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24C-60-08/2023 BETWEEN TERA VA SDN. BHD. (Company No. : 201101001113 [929247-P]) AND AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD. (Company No. : 201701018136 [123301-A]) 15/01/2024 09:04:42 BA-24C-55-08/2023 Kand. 31 S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT (2 Originating Summonses) A. INTRODUCTION [1] In April 2023, Tera Va Sdn. Bhd. (TV) had commenced Adjudication Proceedings pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA 2012) against the Ayam Bintang Sdn. Bhd. (AB) to claim a sum of RM294,750.00 being the unpaid sum arising from the completion of Phase 1 works based on a construction contract made between them. The Adjudicator decided in favour of the Defendant in her Adjudication Decision (AD). [2] As a result of the AD, the followings were filed by the parties: (i). OS No. BA-24C-55-08/2023 (Enforcement OS) was filed by AB for a court order to enforce the AD pursuant to s.28 of CIPAA 2012; and (ii). OS No. BA-24C-60-08/2023 (Setting Aside OS) was filed by TV to set aside the AD. [3] Since there are 2 OSs filed in relation to this AD, the parties agreed to having both the OSs heard together and for the decision to be delivered together. For ease of reference the parties will be referred to henceforth with the acronym of TV and AB respectively. S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 B. BRIEF BACKGROUND [4] TV was appointed by AB to install a Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Solution s 278.10 KWp for a total contract sum of RM613,000.00 to generate electricity using solar energy. [5] The performance of the contract between the parties were to be carried out in 2 phases: i. Phase 1 168.3 KWp for RM393,000.00 whereby 25% of the sum shall be paid upon AB submitting its application to the Malaysia Investment Development Authority (MIDA and the remaining 75% of the sum upon testing and commissioning of Phase 1; and ii. Phase 2 109.89 KWp for RM220,000.00. [6] TV completed Phase 1 works and had accordingly issued a final report on 30.9.2021 together with an invoice dated 30.9.2021 for the agreed balance of 75% of RM393,000.00 amounting to RM294,750.00 to AB. However, AB did not pay TV the invoiced sum and had further not continued with the construction of Phase 2. C. ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS [7] On 16.12.2022, TV issued a Payment Claim to AB for the unpaid sum of RM294,750.00 and a Payment Response dated 30.12.2022 was issued by AB rejecting the Payment Claim on the basis that TV had failed to observe and perform its contractual obligations and duties. S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] In its Payment Response, AB had also made a cross claim, deductions and/or set-off for a sum of RM302,580.00 against the claim made by TV in the Payment Claim. [9] Due to non-payment by AB, TV commenced adjudication proceedings. An Adjudication Claim dated 28.4.2023 by TV was issued to AB. An Adjudication Response dated 12.5.2023 was issued by AB and the same was replied by TV via its Adjudication Reply dated 22.5.2023. [10] Upon conclusion of the adjudication proceedings, the Adjudicator, Loo Yee Mei had delivered her decision via her AD dated 6.6.2023 as follows: i. TV shall pay AB a sum of RM7,830.00; ii. TV shall bear all the costs of the adjudication proceedings amounting to RM13,326.26; and iii. TV shall pay AB for Costs of Reference amounting to RM28,000.00. [11] The parties agreed for this court to hear both the OSs together and a decision was delivered accordingly. [12] Being dissatisfied with the decision, a Notice of Appeal has been filed by TV. S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 D. OBJECT CIPAA 2012 [13] CIPAA 2012 is a creature of the legislation intended to facilitate speedy and regular payments in the construction industry. As cash flow is the utmost important factor in the construction industry, CIPAA provides interim measures to disputing parties to solve payment issues expeditiously so as not to jeopardise the continuance of the construction contract entered into by them. (see Martego Sdn Bhd v. Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2019] 8 CLJ 433; [2019] 5 AMR 516 FC; Bertam Development Sdn Bhd v. R&C Cergas Teguh Sdn Bhd [2017] 1 LNS 2228) E. ISSUES [14] TV of CIPAA 2012 is premised on the followings: i. That the Adjudication Decision was improperly procured through fraud under section 15(a) CIPAA 2012; and ii. That there had been a denial of natural justice under section 15(b) CIPAA 2012. [15] AB premised as follows; i. that the Adjudicated Amount is not paid by TV; ii. that the AD is not set aside or stayed; and ii. that there is no final determination by Arbitration or Court. S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 F. FINDINGS OF THE COURT I. Setting Aside OS -Suit 60 (s.15 of CIPAA 2012) [16] It is Defendant had misled the Adjudicator into believing that the entire roof had been damaged and that it had replaced the roof of its factory and paid for the same, when this was not the case (s.15(a) of CIPAA 2012). [17] TV also alleges that the Adjudicator had decided on a matter not submitted by the parties and concluded the same without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to address the same (s.15(b) of CIPAA 2012). i. s.15(a) of CIPAA 2012 - Fraud [18] In addressing the issue of fraud (s.15(a) of CIPAA 2012), it must be understood that the burden to prove fraud lies on the one who asserts it. Since here, TV had alleged that AB had fraudulently obtained the AD in its favour, the burden is on TV to prove so on a balance of probabilities. [see the Federal Court case of Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 7 CLJ 584; [2015] 1 MLJ 1, at [48]-[53].] [19] cross claim by alleging that TV had damaged the roof of the premises when installing the SPS during Phase 1 stage which had resulted in AB incurring costs of RM286,780.00. A further RM15,800.00 was also allegedly incurred by AB for costs of materials supply and workmanship to paint the existing structure. S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [20] According to AB during the adjudication proceedings, the area of damage on the roof covers 20,565 square feet and this measurement claimed by AB was disputed by TV whereby TV had stated in its Adjudication Reply at paragraph 83.8 as follows: (b) The Claimant had completed the Contract Works but had not been paid according to the payment terms in the Contract. The Claimant was actively pursuing the Respondent to pay and replace its entire roof, including those which were not dented, measuring 20,595 sf at a cost of RM12 psf including miscellaneous works for RM302,580.00. (c) After checking and investigating, the Claimant discovered that only 7,442.75 sf were dented (not 20,595 sf) and the costs was RM4 psf. The Claimant offered to replace them, without admission to any [21] In the Affidavit in Support filed in this suit, TV claimed that an independent party had taken photographs of the roof of the Premise on 17.8.2023 and that there were no replacement works done on the roof as alleged by AB. The damage on the roof was said to be extremely minimal. [22] AB on the other hand had in its Affidavit in Reply refuted the allegation made by TV that the replacement of the roof was not done and photographs by TV is that it is a mere afterthought as no such evidence was produced at the adjudication proceedings. By producing at this suit tantamount to revisit the merits of the case that was concluded at adjudication. S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [23] above eye-view where there is no clarity as to whether the roof is damaged or not and that they only show a portion of the roof. [24] This court concurs with AB so far as to the manner the said photographs were taken and that these photographs do not show what it intended to show clearly. Additionally, since there are no digital dates marked on any of hat these photographs were taken on 17.8.2023 is not substantiated. Furthermore, there is no indication through the said photographs that the images in them are the images of the Premise. [25] Therefore, TV has failed to show to this court by the images in the the adjudication proceedings was untrue. [26] fact that the Premise does not belong to AB and is in fact a rented premise. towards the Premise even though it is a rented property as per the Tenancy Agreement dated 21.06.2021. [27] Being a tenant of a property does not mean that one can cause damage to the property and not bear the responsibility for the same only because one does not own the property. A tenant will have to make good such damages at its own costs as there is a duty of care owed as per the S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 this allegation is accepted by this court. [28] s that TV had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that AB had obtained a decision from the Adjudicator by way of fraudulent means and as such aside the AD pursuant to s.15(a) of CIPAA 2012 has failed. ii. s. 15(b) of CIPAA 2012 [29] In examining whether s.15(b) of CIPAA 2012 i.e there has been a denial of natural justice, can be established in order to set aside the AD, I refer to the case of MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v. Wazam Ventures Sdn Bhd and another case [2020] 1 LNS 891; [2020] MLJU 208, where Wong Kian Kheong J (as he then was) held that it is sufficient to dislodge a complaint of breach of natural justice if the Adjudicator had given just one reason to have arrived to his decision. [30] The principle of natural justice that is said to have been denied here is the right to being heard, audi alteram partem. In an Adjudication Proceedings, the Adjudicator has the duty to accord procedural fairness to the parties during the course of the proceedings whereby the issues raised by both parties are to be considered and a decision is to be derived therefrom. In the case of ACFM Engineering & Construction Sdn. Bhd. v. Esstar Vision Sdn Bhd & another appeal [2016] 1 LNS 1522; [2016] MLJU 1776, the Court of Appeal held: S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 When one speaks of natural justice, it is nothing more than what we call the concept of "procedural fairness" which needs to be accorded to the parties in a dispute of a hearing. [31] allegation that there had been a denial of natural justice when the Adjudicator had decided on a matter not submitted by the parties and concluded the same without giving TV an opportunity to address the same. The issue which TV refers to is on the issue pertaining to the rate for the cost of rectification of the roof. [32] Since the rate for the cost of rectification of the roof was provided by AB in its Adjudication Response, TV could very well have responded to the same via its Adjudication Reply. The Adjudicator had used all information made available to her in order to come to her conclusion. [33] The question that needs to be asked is whether TV was denied the right to being heard as alleged? In this case, as seen in the AD, the Adjudicator had deliberated on all the issues raised by both TV and AB at the adjudication proceedings at length and had come to her conclusion. The Adjudicator had provided both parties their opportunities to state their case at the adjudication proceedings and had not left any issues raised at the said proceedings undeliberated. Therefore, TV Adjudicator had denied it the right to be heard is unfounded. [34] I refer to the case of Bina Puri Construction Sdn Bhd v Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. [2015] 8 CLJ 728 where it was stated as follows: Adjudicator may be set aside. Since an application under s.15 is not an appeal, the decision of the Adjudicator cannot be reviewed on S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [35] As such, whether the Adjudicator had assessed the issues raised correctly or not is not up to this court to determine as the decision of the Adjudicator cannot be reviewed on its merits. [36] Furthermore, s.25(i) of CIPAA 2012 provides the Adjudicator the power to inquisitorially take the initiative to ascertain the fact and the law required for the decision. The Adjudicator is free to form his opinion independently of both parties and to rely on information which is obtained by her own investigation. [37] Since the Adjudication Proceedings pursuant to CIPAA 2012 is an interim measure to solve issues related to payments, any errors or omission arising from this proceeding can be remedied via a final determination through arbitration or court as provided for under s.13 of CIPAA 2012. (see: Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd v. IRDK Ventures Sdn Bhd & another case [2016] 5 CLJ 882) [38] Based on the foregoing, TV has failed to discharge its burden to show that the Adjudicator has breached the rules of natural justice pursuant to s.15(b) of CIPAA 2012. [39] Therefore, having failed to establish ss.15(a) and (b) of CIPAA 2012, ation to set aside the AD is dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid to AB subject to allocatur fee. iii. Enforcement OS Suit 55 (s.28 of CIPAA 2012) S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [40] As guided by Her Ladyship Mary Lim Thiam Suan JCA (as she then was) in the Court of Appeal case of Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd v. Puteri Nusantara Sdn Bhd [2019] 2 CLJ 229, the court may exercise its discretion to grant leave under s. 28(1) and (2) CIPAA to enforce an adjudication decision if the following three conditions (3 Conditions) are met: for leave under s. 28 CIPAA; (2) the party against whom an adjudication decision is made, has failed to pay the adjudicated amount on the date specified in the adjudication decision; and [41] In this case, all 3 conditions have been satisfied and since the Setting Aside has been dismissed, s application to enforce the AD is allowed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by TV to AB subject to allocatur fee. G. CONCLUSION [42] Premised on the above evidences and reasons: (i) the Setting Aside OS is dismissed; (ii) the Enforcement OS is allowed; and S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /ocK5PlJ2EGQ2tESwu3x4Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24C-60-08/2023

PEMOHON TERA VA SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD.

2 originating summonses.Setting aside OS is dismissed.The enforcement OS is allowed.A total cost of RM10,000.00 subject to allocatur shall be paid by TV to AB accordingly.

15/01/2024

YA Puan Sumathi a/p Murugiah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bf6d99d4-33f2-49ab-a28f-a29236d0f01b&Inline=true

2nd Draft - Tera Va v Ayam Bintang.pdf 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24C-55-08/2023 BETWEEN AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD. (Company No. : 201701018136 [123301-A]) AND TERA VA SDN. BHD. DANT (Company No. : 201101001113 [929247-P]) (HEARD TOGETHER WITH) IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24C-60-08/2023 BETWEEN TERA VA SDN. BHD. (Company No. : 201101001113 [929247-P]) AND AYAM BINTANG ISTIMEWA SDN. BHD. (Company No. : 201701018136 [123301-A]) 15/01/2024 09:07:30 BA-24C-60-08/2023 Kand. 24 S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT (2 Originating Summonses) A. INTRODUCTION [1] In April 2023, Tera Va Sdn. Bhd. (TV) had commenced Adjudication Proceedings pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA 2012) against the Ayam Bintang Sdn. Bhd. (AB) to claim a sum of RM294,750.00 being the unpaid sum arising from the completion of Phase 1 works based on a construction contract made between them. The Adjudicator decided in favour of the Defendant in her Adjudication Decision (AD). [2] As a result of the AD, the followings were filed by the parties: (i). OS No. BA-24C-55-08/2023 (Enforcement OS) was filed by AB for a court order to enforce the AD pursuant to s.28 of CIPAA 2012; and (ii). OS No. BA-24C-60-08/2023 (Setting Aside OS) was filed by TV to set aside the AD. [3] Since there are 2 OSs filed in relation to this AD, the parties agreed to having both the OSs heard together and for the decision to be delivered together. For ease of reference the parties will be referred to henceforth with the acronym of TV and AB respectively. S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 B. BRIEF BACKGROUND [4] TV was appointed by AB to install a Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Solution s 278.10 KWp for a total contract sum of RM613,000.00 to generate electricity using solar energy. [5] The performance of the contract between the parties were to be carried out in 2 phases: i. Phase 1 168.3 KWp for RM393,000.00 whereby 25% of the sum shall be paid upon AB submitting its application to the Malaysia Investment Development Authority (MIDA and the remaining 75% of the sum upon testing and commissioning of Phase 1; and ii. Phase 2 109.89 KWp for RM220,000.00. [6] TV completed Phase 1 works and had accordingly issued a final report on 30.9.2021 together with an invoice dated 30.9.2021 for the agreed balance of 75% of RM393,000.00 amounting to RM294,750.00 to AB. However, AB did not pay TV the invoiced sum and had further not continued with the construction of Phase 2. C. ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS [7] On 16.12.2022, TV issued a Payment Claim to AB for the unpaid sum of RM294,750.00 and a Payment Response dated 30.12.2022 was issued by AB rejecting the Payment Claim on the basis that TV had failed to observe and perform its contractual obligations and duties. S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] In its Payment Response, AB had also made a cross claim, deductions and/or set-off for a sum of RM302,580.00 against the claim made by TV in the Payment Claim. [9] Due to non-payment by AB, TV commenced adjudication proceedings. An Adjudication Claim dated 28.4.2023 by TV was issued to AB. An Adjudication Response dated 12.5.2023 was issued by AB and the same was replied by TV via its Adjudication Reply dated 22.5.2023. [10] Upon conclusion of the adjudication proceedings, the Adjudicator, Loo Yee Mei had delivered her decision via her AD dated 6.6.2023 as follows: i. TV shall pay AB a sum of RM7,830.00; ii. TV shall bear all the costs of the adjudication proceedings amounting to RM13,326.26; and iii. TV shall pay AB for Costs of Reference amounting to RM28,000.00. [11] The parties agreed for this court to hear both the OSs together and a decision was delivered accordingly. [12] Being dissatisfied with the decision, a Notice of Appeal has been filed by TV. S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 D. OBJECT CIPAA 2012 [13] CIPAA 2012 is a creature of the legislation intended to facilitate speedy and regular payments in the construction industry. As cash flow is the utmost important factor in the construction industry, CIPAA provides interim measures to disputing parties to solve payment issues expeditiously so as not to jeopardise the continuance of the construction contract entered into by them. (see Martego Sdn Bhd v. Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2019] 8 CLJ 433; [2019] 5 AMR 516 FC; Bertam Development Sdn Bhd v. R&C Cergas Teguh Sdn Bhd [2017] 1 LNS 2228) E. ISSUES [14] TV of CIPAA 2012 is premised on the followings: i. That the Adjudication Decision was improperly procured through fraud under section 15(a) CIPAA 2012; and ii. That there had been a denial of natural justice under section 15(b) CIPAA 2012. [15] AB premised as follows; i. that the Adjudicated Amount is not paid by TV; ii. that the AD is not set aside or stayed; and ii. that there is no final determination by Arbitration or Court. S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 F. FINDINGS OF THE COURT I. Setting Aside OS -Suit 60 (s.15 of CIPAA 2012) [16] It is Defendant had misled the Adjudicator into believing that the entire roof had been damaged and that it had replaced the roof of its factory and paid for the same, when this was not the case (s.15(a) of CIPAA 2012). [17] TV also alleges that the Adjudicator had decided on a matter not submitted by the parties and concluded the same without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to address the same (s.15(b) of CIPAA 2012). i. s.15(a) of CIPAA 2012 - Fraud [18] In addressing the issue of fraud (s.15(a) of CIPAA 2012), it must be understood that the burden to prove fraud lies on the one who asserts it. Since here, TV had alleged that AB had fraudulently obtained the AD in its favour, the burden is on TV to prove so on a balance of probabilities. [see the Federal Court case of Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 7 CLJ 584; [2015] 1 MLJ 1, at [48]-[53].] [19] cross claim by alleging that TV had damaged the roof of the premises when installing the SPS during Phase 1 stage which had resulted in AB incurring costs of RM286,780.00. A further RM15,800.00 was also allegedly incurred by AB for costs of materials supply and workmanship to paint the existing structure. S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [20] According to AB during the adjudication proceedings, the area of damage on the roof covers 20,565 square feet and this measurement claimed by AB was disputed by TV whereby TV had stated in its Adjudication Reply at paragraph 83.8 as follows: (b) The Claimant had completed the Contract Works but had not been paid according to the payment terms in the Contract. The Claimant was actively pursuing the Respondent to pay and replace its entire roof, including those which were not dented, measuring 20,595 sf at a cost of RM12 psf including miscellaneous works for RM302,580.00. (c) After checking and investigating, the Claimant discovered that only 7,442.75 sf were dented (not 20,595 sf) and the costs was RM4 psf. The Claimant offered to replace them, without admission to any [21] In the Affidavit in Support filed in this suit, TV claimed that an independent party had taken photographs of the roof of the Premise on 17.8.2023 and that there were no replacement works done on the roof as alleged by AB. The damage on the roof was said to be extremely minimal. [22] AB on the other hand had in its Affidavit in Reply refuted the allegation made by TV that the replacement of the roof was not done and photographs by TV is that it is a mere afterthought as no such evidence was produced at the adjudication proceedings. By producing at this suit tantamount to revisit the merits of the case that was concluded at adjudication. S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [23] above eye-view where there is no clarity as to whether the roof is damaged or not and that they only show a portion of the roof. [24] This court concurs with AB so far as to the manner the said photographs were taken and that these photographs do not show what it intended to show clearly. Additionally, since there are no digital dates marked on any of hat these photographs were taken on 17.8.2023 is not substantiated. Furthermore, there is no indication through the said photographs that the images in them are the images of the Premise. [25] Therefore, TV has failed to show to this court by the images in the the adjudication proceedings was untrue. [26] fact that the Premise does not belong to AB and is in fact a rented premise. towards the Premise even though it is a rented property as per the Tenancy Agreement dated 21.06.2021. [27] Being a tenant of a property does not mean that one can cause damage to the property and not bear the responsibility for the same only because one does not own the property. A tenant will have to make good such damages at its own costs as there is a duty of care owed as per the S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 this allegation is accepted by this court. [28] s that TV had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that AB had obtained a decision from the Adjudicator by way of fraudulent means and as such aside the AD pursuant to s.15(a) of CIPAA 2012 has failed. ii. s. 15(b) of CIPAA 2012 [29] In examining whether s.15(b) of CIPAA 2012 i.e there has been a denial of natural justice, can be established in order to set aside the AD, I refer to the case of MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v. Wazam Ventures Sdn Bhd and another case [2020] 1 LNS 891; [2020] MLJU 208, where Wong Kian Kheong J (as he then was) held that it is sufficient to dislodge a complaint of breach of natural justice if the Adjudicator had given just one reason to have arrived to his decision. [30] The principle of natural justice that is said to have been denied here is the right to being heard, audi alteram partem. In an Adjudication Proceedings, the Adjudicator has the duty to accord procedural fairness to the parties during the course of the proceedings whereby the issues raised by both parties are to be considered and a decision is to be derived therefrom. In the case of ACFM Engineering & Construction Sdn. Bhd. v. Esstar Vision Sdn Bhd & another appeal [2016] 1 LNS 1522; [2016] MLJU 1776, the Court of Appeal held: S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 When one speaks of natural justice, it is nothing more than what we call the concept of "procedural fairness" which needs to be accorded to the parties in a dispute of a hearing. [31] allegation that there had been a denial of natural justice when the Adjudicator had decided on a matter not submitted by the parties and concluded the same without giving TV an opportunity to address the same. The issue which TV refers to is on the issue pertaining to the rate for the cost of rectification of the roof. [32] Since the rate for the cost of rectification of the roof was provided by AB in its Adjudication Response, TV could very well have responded to the same via its Adjudication Reply. The Adjudicator had used all information made available to her in order to come to her conclusion. [33] The question that needs to be asked is whether TV was denied the right to being heard as alleged? In this case, as seen in the AD, the Adjudicator had deliberated on all the issues raised by both TV and AB at the adjudication proceedings at length and had come to her conclusion. The Adjudicator had provided both parties their opportunities to state their case at the adjudication proceedings and had not left any issues raised at the said proceedings undeliberated. Therefore, TV Adjudicator had denied it the right to be heard is unfounded. [34] I refer to the case of Bina Puri Construction Sdn Bhd v Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. [2015] 8 CLJ 728 where it was stated as follows: Adjudicator may be set aside. Since an application under s.15 is not an appeal, the decision of the Adjudicator cannot be reviewed on S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [35] As such, whether the Adjudicator had assessed the issues raised correctly or not is not up to this court to determine as the decision of the Adjudicator cannot be reviewed on its merits. [36] Furthermore, s.25(i) of CIPAA 2012 provides the Adjudicator the power to inquisitorially take the initiative to ascertain the fact and the law required for the decision. The Adjudicator is free to form his opinion independently of both parties and to rely on information which is obtained by her own investigation. [37] Since the Adjudication Proceedings pursuant to CIPAA 2012 is an interim measure to solve issues related to payments, any errors or omission arising from this proceeding can be remedied via a final determination through arbitration or court as provided for under s.13 of CIPAA 2012. (see: Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd v. IRDK Ventures Sdn Bhd & another case [2016] 5 CLJ 882) [38] Based on the foregoing, TV has failed to discharge its burden to show that the Adjudicator has breached the rules of natural justice pursuant to s.15(b) of CIPAA 2012. [39] Therefore, having failed to establish ss.15(a) and (b) of CIPAA 2012, ation to set aside the AD is dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid to AB subject to allocatur fee. iii. Enforcement OS Suit 55 (s.28 of CIPAA 2012) S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [40] As guided by Her Ladyship Mary Lim Thiam Suan JCA (as she then was) in the Court of Appeal case of Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd v. Puteri Nusantara Sdn Bhd [2019] 2 CLJ 229, the court may exercise its discretion to grant leave under s. 28(1) and (2) CIPAA to enforce an adjudication decision if the following three conditions (3 Conditions) are met: for leave under s. 28 CIPAA; (2) the party against whom an adjudication decision is made, has failed to pay the adjudicated amount on the date specified in the adjudication decision; and [41] In this case, all 3 conditions have been satisfied and since the Setting Aside has been dismissed, s application to enforce the AD is allowed with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by TV to AB subject to allocatur fee. G. CONCLUSION [42] Premised on the above evidences and reasons: (i) the Setting Aside OS is dismissed; (ii) the Enforcement OS is allowed; and S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 1Jltv/Izq0mij6KSNtDwGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24C-42-05/2023

PEMOHON PI BRILLIANT BERHAD RESPONDEN ISLAH MEGA SDN BHD

Password: -The Plaintiff has successfully shown to this court that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of her jurisdiction.-Court allow the Plaintiff’s application to set aside the AD with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff subject to allocator fee.-Plaintiff’s application for a Fortuna Injunction and a Stay of Execution of the AD is no longer necessary.

15/01/2024

YA Puan Sumathi a/p Murugiah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7da8a641-3670-4bdf-8018-25121d98e3de&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - 4th Draft GOJ - PI Brilliant v Islah Mega (2).doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO : BA-24C-42-05/2023 BETWEEN PI BRILLIANT BERHAD … Plaintiff (Company No. : 263491-P) AND ISLAH MEGA SDN BHD … Defendant (Company No. : 1039512-W) JUDGMENT A. INTRODUCTION [1] On November 2022, the Defendant had commenced Adjudication Proceedings pursuant to the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA 2012) against the Plaintiff. The Adjudicator, Ranjeeta Kaur, decided in favour of the Defendant in her Adjudication Decision dated 28.03.2023 (AD). [2] As a result of the AD, the Plaintiff had filed this Originating Summons (OS) to set aside the AD, for a Stay of Execution of the AD and for a Fortuna Injunction. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed an amended OS via an application in Enclosure 20 wherein the stay 15/01/2024 15:58:04 BA-24C-42-05/2023 Kand. 26 S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 application was removed from the OS. The Plaintiff then filed a notice of application via Enclosure 21 for a Stay of Execution of the AD. [3] Hence, the Plaintiff’s applications are as follows: (i). The amended OS (Enclosure 20) was filed by the Plaintiff set aside the AD pursuant to s.15 of CIPAA 2012 and a Fortuna Injunction; and (ii). Enclosure 21 was filed by the Plaintiff for a Stay of Execution of the AD pursuant to s.16 of CIPAA 2012; [4] The parties agreed to having both Enclosure 20 and 21 heard together and for the decision of the same to be delivered together. B. BRIEF BACKGROUND [5] By way of a Letter of Award dated 5.12.2029 (LOA), the Plaintiff had appointed the Defendant as a sub-contractor to carry “Preliminaries Works, Piling Works, Villa Apartment 3 Tingkat, Pejabat Pengurusan dan Kemudahan, Ancillary Building, Mechanical Works, Electrical Works & Infrastructure” valued at RM9,520,000.00 for a project known as “CADANGAN PEMBANGUNAN RUMAH SELANGORKU YANG MENGANDUNGI 3 BLOK RUMAH SELANGORKU JENIS D APARTMENT “VILLA” (3 TINGKAT – 5 UNIT), 1 UNIT PENCAWANG ELEKTRIK JENIS PADAT, 1 UNIT KEBUK SAMPAH, 1 UNIT PONDOK PENGAWAL, 1 UNIT PEJABAT PENGURUSAN DAN KEMUDAHAN, 1 UNIT GELANGGANG PERMAINAN DAN 1 UNIT WAKAF” located at Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan. (“the Project”). S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [6] Despite an extension of time to complete the Project was given from 2.3.2021 to 24.8.2021, the Defendant had failed to complete the works. In order to expedite the Defendant’s works so as to meet the completion date, the Plaintiff had assisted the Defendant in purchasing the required construction materials and advancing payments on the Defendant’s behalf. [7] During the course of the construction, the Plaintiff had issued two (2) Certificates of Non-completion (CNC) dated 28.9.2020 and 3.9.2021 to the Defendant as a warning related to Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) to be imposed if the delay in completion persist. [8] Due to the financial constraint faced by the Defendant which would lead to a further delay in completing the works, at a meeting held between them on 12.10.2021, both parties agreed to mutually terminate the LOA so as to save the Project. Consequently, the Plaintiff had issued a Certificate of Final Payment Claims to the Defendant for the sum of negative RM995,525.21. This amount was calculated after taking into consideration the sums still owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff including the LAD, Debit Notes etc. [9] The Plaintiff had incurred further LAD due to an obstruction caused by the crane operator appointed by the Defendant which had caused for work to stop at the site. The LAD was for a total of 16 days amounting to RM42,000.00 i.e between 10.11.2021 to 25.11.2021. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [10] 0n 29.4.2022, the Defendant served a Payment Claim against the Plaintiff for a sum of RM1,702,157.72 for the followings: i. Final claim of RM197,362.33; ii. Damages due to wrongful termination amounting to RM894,828.15; iii. Rent of equipment amounting to RM191,987.64; iv. Loss due to Stop Work Order (January to July 2020) amounting to RM101,679.60; v. Transportation of workers costs amounting to RM60,000.00; vi. Costs of lost items; and vii. Interest at a rate of 5% from the period of cease of payment till the full settlement (including legal costs). [11] No Payment Response was made by the Plaintiff to the Payment Claim served by the Defendant. C. ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS [12] The Defendant initiated adjudication proceedings against the Plaintiff by issuing a Notice of Adjudication dated 3.6.2022 and an Adjudication Claim was served on 16.11.2022 to the Plaintiff. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [13] In the Adjudication Claim served by the Plaintiff, the following claims were made: i. Final claim of RM197,362.33; ii. Claim for loss and damages in the sum of RM894,828.15; iii. Rental fee for the Claimant’s equipment left on site amounting to RM210,000.00; iv. Expenditure losses for June-August 2021 amounting to RM191,987.64; v. Expenditure losses for June-August 2021 amounting to RM101,679.60; vi. Costs of worker transportation in the sum of RM60,000.00; vi. Costs of items lost due to the default by the Respondent; vii. Interest at a rate of 5% from the period of cease of payment till the full settlement; and viii. All cost incurred (including legal costs incurred). [14] The Plaintiff had raised three (3) Preliminary Objections (3 POs) as follows: i. The claims and reliefs sought by the Defendant was not within the jurisdiction of CIPAA (1st PO); S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 ii. The Adjudication Claim was filed out of time without the consent from the Plaintiff and or the Adjudicator and that the Defendant had filed two (2) different versions of the Adjudication Claims on 16.11.2022. The first version of the Adjudication Claim which was filed at 4.50 pm was without any supporting documents and the second version of the Adjudication Claim which was filed at 6.35 pm contained claims and contents which were different to the first Adjudication Claim without the consent by the Plaintiff and or the Adjudicator (2nd PO); and iii. The Payment Claim dated 28.4.2022 prepared by the Defendant was not in accordance to s.5(2) of CIPAA 2012 (3rd PO). [15] The Plaintiff had also via its Adjudication Response, made counterclaims as follows: i. LAD amounting to RM451,500.00; ii. Damages due to KAP Global Enterprise’s crane which had blocked the site entrance amounting to RM42,000.00; iii. Legal costs of RM50,000.00 iv. Interest calculated at 5% per annum; and v. Other relieves deemed fair and equitable by the learned Adjudicator. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [16] Upon conclusion of the adjudication proceedings, the Adjudicator had delivered her decision in favour of the Defendant via her AD dated 28.3.2023 as follows: “ 20.2 I determine that: i. The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the amount of RM1,092,190.48 (Ringgit Malaysia one million ninety-two thousand one hundred and ninety and cents forty-eight only). ii. Pursuant to Section 25(o) of the CIPAA 2012, the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant interests calculated at the rate of 5% per annum on RM1,092,190.48 (Ringgit Malaysia one million ninety-two thousand one hundred and ninety and cents forty- eight only) as detailed in paragraph 19.3.2 above from the due date of the payment until this amount is paid in full. iii. Costs of Adjudication Proceedings to be borne by the Respondent amounting to RM67,919.62 (Ringgit Malaysia sixty- seven thousand nine hundred and nineteen and cents sixty-two only) and this amount shall be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. iv. The above amounts as laid out in paragraph 20.2 herein shall be paid on or before 11 April 2023 and in one lump sum and henceforth Tuesday, 11 April 2023 will be called the due date for payment of the said amounts.” [17] Being dissatisfied with my decision, a Notice of Appeal has been filed by the Defendant. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 D. OBJECT CIPAA 2012 [18] CIPAA 2012 is a creature of the legislation intended to facilitate speedy and regular payments in the construction industry. As cash flow is the utmost important factor in the construction industry, CIPAA provides interim measures to disputing parties to solve payment issues expeditiously so as not to jeopardise the continuance of the construction contract entered into by them. (see Martego Sdn Bhd v. Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2019] 8 CLJ 433; [2019] 5 AMR 516 FC; Bertam Development Sdn Bhd v. R&C Cergas Teguh Sdn Bhd [2017] 1 LNS 2228) E. ISSUES [19] As all the 3 POs were dismissed by the Adjudicator and the Adjudicator had proceeded to make her decision in favour of the claims made by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has applied through this suit to set aside the AD pursuant to s.15 (b), (c) and (d) of CIPAA 2012 against the AD. [20] The issues which have to be dealt with in relation to this application to set aside the AD are as follows: i. Whether the Adjudicator had acted in denial of natural justice against the Plaintiff pursuant to s.15 (b) CIPAA 2012? S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 ii. Whether the Adjudicator had not acted independently or impartially pursuant to s.15 (c) CIPAA 2012? iii. Whether the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction pursuant s.15 (d) CIPAA 2012. F. FINDINGS OF THE COURT I. Whether the Adjudicator had acted in denial of natural justice against the Plaintiff pursuant to s.15 (b) CIPAA 2012? [21] It is the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Adjudicator had failed to properly or at all consider all the 3 POs raised by the Plaintiff as such the Adjudicator had acted in denial of natural justice against the Plaintiff. [22] In the case of MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v. Wazam Ventures Sdn Bhd and another case [2020] 1 LNS 891; [2020] MLJU 208, Wong Kian Kheong J (as he then was) held that it is sufficient to dislodge a complaint of breach of natural justice if the Adjudicator had given just one reason to have arrived to his decision. [23] The principle of natural justice that is said to have been denied here is the right to being heard, audi alteram partem. In an Adjudication Proceedings, the Adjudicator has the duty to accord procedural fairness to the parties during the course of the proceedings whereby the issues raised by both parties are to be considered and a decision is to be derived therefrom. In the case of ACFM Engineering & Construction S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Sdn. Bhd. v. Esstar Vision Sdn Bhd & another appeal [2016] 1 LNS 1522; [2016] MLJU 1776, the Court of Appeal held: “[19] When one speaks of natural justice, it is nothing more than what we call the concept of "procedural fairness" which needs to be accorded to the parties in a dispute of a hearing.” [24] In this case, upon perusing through the AD, it is clear that the Adjudicator had addressed all issues raised by the Plaintiff in the 3 POs and the defence put up by the Defendant for the same prior to coming to her conclusion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Adjudicator had acted in breach of the natural justice is unsubstantiated. [25] I refer to the case of Bina Puri Construction Sdn Bhd v Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. [2015] 8 CLJ 728 where it was stated as follows: “… Section 15 has provided limited grounds on which the decision of the Adjudicator may be set aside. Since an application under s.15 is not an appeal, the decision of the Adjudicator cannot be reviewed on merits.” II. Whether the Adjudicator had not acted independently or impartially pursuant to s.15 (c) CIPAA 2012? [26] An AD can be set aside if it can be established pursuant to s. 15(c) of CIPAA 2012 if the Plaintiff discharges its legal burden that the Adjudicator lacked independence or impartiality in conducting the adjudication proceedings and in delivering the AD. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [27] Even though they are generally used synonymously, ‘independence’ and ‘impartiality’ are concepts which have distinct differences. In the context of adjudication pursuant to s.15(c) of CIPAA 2012, lack of independence describes an adjudicator who has prior or existing relationships between himself and any one of the parties at the adjudication proceedings. [28] In the book, Construction Adjudication in Malaysia by Lam Wai Loon and Ivan Y.F.Loo (Chapter 6 para 6.13), the following was stated in defining ‘impartiality’: “As stated in Mustill & Boyd Commercial Arbitration (2nd Edition), ‘impartiality is the antonym of bias’. Bias can come in many forms. As per Lord Phillips in Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2): Bias is an attitude of mind which prevents the Judge from making an objective determination of the issues that he has to resolve. A Judge may be biased because he has reason to prefer one outcome of the case to another. He may be biased because he has reason to favour one party rather than another. He may be biased not in favour of one outcome of the dispute but because of a prejudice in favour of or against a particular witness which prevents an impartial assessment of the evidence of that witness. Bias can come in may forms. It may consist of irrational prejudice or it may arise from particular circumstances which, for logical reasons, predispose a Judge towards a particular view of the evidence or issues before him.” S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [29] In this case, it is Plaintiff’s contention that the fact that the Adjudicator had failed to consider the 3 POs raised by the Plaintiff in itself displays the Adjudicator’s lack of independence or impartiality in assessing the issues before her. [30] By the definitions of what constitute ‘independence’ and ‘impartiality’ as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, apart from the allegations made against the Adjudicator, the Plaintiff had not adduced any cogent evidence or had made any compelling legal submission justifying the Adjudicator’s lack of independence or impartiality in arriving to her decision. As shown in the above paragraphs dealing with s.15(b) of CIPAA, it is seen that the Adjudicator had reasoned out every conclusion that she had reached in deliberating the issues brought before her. [31] At this juncture, I refer to the High Court case of Teguh Wiramas Sdn Bhd v. Thien Seng Chan Sdn Bhd [2017] 1 LNS 619; [2017] 4 AMR 501 where Lee Swee Seng J (as he then was) held as follows: “ [39] There is also no basis for the Respondent to allege that the Adjudicator had failed to act independently and impartially. The fact that the Adjudicator did not agree with the Respondent's position on the law is no proof that he had failed to act independently and impartially. Such an allegation should not be launched without some evidence pointing inexorably to a lack of independence or impartiality in the hearing and the delivery of the Adjudication Decision.” S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [32] Therefore, not being the party who the Adjudicator was in favour of cannot constitute as evidence to this assertion made against the Adjudicator. As such, I am not convinced that the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving the allegation made against the Adjudicator under this limb. III. Whether the Adjudicator had acted in excess of her jurisdiction pursuant s.15 (d) CIPAA 2012? [33] s.27 of CIPAA 2012 draws out the boundaries in terms of the jurisdiction in which the Adjudicator can conduct the adjudication proceedings. s.27(3) of CIPAA particularly gives the Adjudicator the discretion to proceed and complete the adjudication proceedings not withstanding any jurisdiction challenge, without prejudice to the rights under s.15 and s.28 accordingly. [34] An AD is commonly applied to be set aside in reliance of s.15(d), as such the case of Terminal Perintis Sdn. Bhd. v Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn. Bhd. and another [2017] 1 LNS 177; [2017] MLJU had laid down the classification in terms of ‘jurisdiction’. Lee Swee Seng J (as his he then was) classified ‘jurisdiction’ in 3 categories ie. core jurisdiction, competence jurisdiction and contingent jurisdiction. [35] In this case, the jurisdiction challenge is on the contingent jurisdiction as stated in the Terminal Perintis Sdn. Bhd. v Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn. Bhd. and another (supra): S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 “ there must be further compliance with the requirements of the Act as in that the dispute must be one falling within the matters raised in the Payment Claim and the Payment Response as provided for under section 27(1) CIPAA. In that example the word "jurisdiction" is used in the sense of the scope of the dispute that is before the Adjudicator for decision. So, for example an Adjudicator may not be able to decide on the defence of set-off arising out of costs of rectifying defective works if this has not been raised in the Payment Response. If he so decides, then this Court may set it aside as been made in excess of jurisdiction.” [36] Here, the 2nd and 3rd POs are on irregular service of the Adjudication Claim by the Defendant and on non-compliance to s.5(2) of CIPAA 2012 respectively. In its 2nd PO, it is the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant had served the Adjudication Claim in 2 different versions and that it was also served out of time without the consent of the Plaintiff and or the Adjudicator. [37] On this issue, the Defendant had explained that the 2 Adjudication Claims are not different to one another except there is a missing page in the 1st Adjudication Claim which was corrected in the 2nd Adjudication Claim. It was also explained that the reason the 1st Adjudication Claim was filed without the supporting documents because the supporting documents were voluminous and as such, the Adjudication Claim was emailed first whilst the supporting documents were copied with the intention to be sent to the Plaintiff. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [38] As for the 3rd PO, it is the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant had not complied with s.5(2) of CIPAA 2012 as the claims made therein was not supported by any documents. In this regard, the Defendant had invoked s.26(1) of CIPAA 2012 wherein it expressly provides that the non-compliance by the parties with the provisions of CIPAA 2012, whether in respect of time limit, form or content or in any other respect, shall be treated as irregularity and shall not invalidate the power of the adjudicator to adjudicate the dispute nor nullify the adjudication proceedings. [39] The Adjudicator in this case, had applied s.26(1) of CIPAA 2012 on both the 2nd PO and the 3rd PO of the Plaintiff and accepted the service of the adjudication claim and the non-compliance of s.5(2) of CIPAA 2012 as irregularity which can be pardonable and correctable and had proceeded with the adjudication proceedings. [40] As for the 1st PO, the objection was on the fact that issue pertaining to the termination of the contract was raised in the Payment Claim by the Defendant and it was the Plaintiff contention was that the adjudication proceedings was not the appropriate forum to resolve this issue. The Plaintiff had in its Adjudication Response argued that the issue of the termination of contract does not fall within the definition of “payment” as set out in s.4 of CIPAA 2012 and that the doctrine of forum non conveniens would apply where the competent jurisdiction to decide on the issue of termination of contract is the arbitration or the courts and not via adjudication. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [41] Here, the issue pertaining to the termination of the contract was raised in the Payment Claim by the Defendant, however, the Plaintiff had raised a preliminary objection via its letter dated 21.10.2022 against this issue being brought to adjudication (1st PO). The Plaintiff had in its Adjudication Response argued that the issue of the termination of contract does not fall within the definition of “payment” as set out in s.4 of CIPAA 2012 and that the doctrine of forum non conveniens would apply where the competent jurisdiction to decide on the issue of termination of contract is the arbitration or the courts and not via adjudication. [42] The Plaintiff had referred to the case of Alupanorama Metals Sdn Bhd & Anor v Okaya International (HK) Ltd & Anor [2021] 11 MLJ 72 where Faizah Jamaluddin J held as follows:- “[25] Peh Swee Chin SCJ (as he then was) in American Express Bank explained the origins and the principle of the doctrine of forum non conveniens as follows: ‘The doctrine of forum non conveniens appears to have originated in Scotland and has finally found full acceptance by the House of Lords in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Consulax Ltd (The Spiliada) [1986] 3 All ER 843 after a series of decisions, … The main judgment in the Spiliada was delivered by Lord Goff, who adopted the dictum of Lord Kinnear in Sim v Robinow [1892] 19 R (ct of Sess) 665, 668 as being the fundamental principle in regard to this doctrine ie that ‘there is some other tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, in which, the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all parties and for the ends of justice.’ Lord Goff cautioned that the word ‘conveniens’ in forum non conveniens meant suitability or appropriateness of the relevant jurisdiction and not one of convenience. We are in entire agreement with the fundamental principle so expressed’.” S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [43] However, the Adjudicator had dealt with the POs and decided that she had the jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication since the issue of termination of the contract was raised in the Payment Claim by the Defendant. The Adjudicator’s decision had substantially been on her findings that the Defendant had been unilaterally terminated since the terms and conditions of the mutual termination was not complied by the Plaintiff and as such, the claims and reliefs sought by the Defendant arising from the termination was allowed by the Adjudicator. [44] In accordance to s.4 of CIPAA, the interpretation of ‘Payment’ is as follows: ““Payment” means payment for work done or services tendered under the express terms of a construction Contract. “ [45] The FC in the case of Martego Sdn. Bhd. v Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn. Bhd. & Another appeal (supra) had decided that : “ As long as they were payment claims relating to a construction contract, defined in S4 the CIPAA would apply…” [46] As such, a claim for loss and damages arising from the termination of contract will certainly not fall within the meaning of “Payment” as given in s.4 of CIPAA 2012. Since it refers to payments unpaid by the non paying party, this would only mean that the request for payment for the work done or service rendered must have been relayed to the non- paying party before a claim can be made via a Payment Claim. By its definition, it cannot mean payments for work yet to be done or service yet to be rendered. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [47] In this case, even if I would to consider the final sum claimed by the Defendant being a sum of RM197,362.33 as payment as defined pursuant to s.4 of CIPAA, it is not stated anywhere in the Payment Claim that this sum had been requested from the Plaintiff by the Defendant prior to the commencement of the adjudication proceedings and the same was not paid by the Plaintiff. What was clearly stated in the Payment Claim was that the basis of this claim was for “Unlawful Termination of Contract” for loss and damages arising therefrom. [48] Based on the foregoing, I conclude that as the Adjudicator derives her powers pursuant to s.25 of CIPAA 2012 and nothing in this section gives the Adjudicator the power to decide on a claim for loss and damages arising from the termination of contract. As such, the claims for loss and damages are certainly not within the jurisdiction of CIPAA 2012 as it is not payment for work done or services (s.4). [49] Based on the foregoing, it is my considered view that the Defendant’s claims made at the adjudication proceedings are to be brought to its resolution at arbitration or to the court as adjudication is not the proper forum to decide on issues pertaining to the termination of the contract and the claims arising therefrom. [50] Therefore, the Plaintiff has successfully shown to this court that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of her jurisdiction. Hence, I allow the Plaintiff’s application to set aside the AD with costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff subject to allocatur fee. S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [51] Having set aside the AD, the Plaintiff’s application for a Fortuna Injunction and a Stay of Execution of the AD is no longer necessary, as such both these applications are dismissed accordingly. SUMATHI A/P MURUGIAH Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan DATE : 15 JANUARY 2024 Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Marcus Hoo Can Jie & Mr. Lim Tien Loong (Messrs. Lim & Chia) Counsel for Defendant: Mr. Suronmani Krishnan (Messrs. Hakem Arabi & Associates) S/N QaaofXA230uAGCUSHZjj3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CB-A72NCvC-4-01/2022

PLAINTIF PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD DEFENDAN 1. ) ROSNI BINTI ZAHARI 2. ) FRANCIS TAN JENG LOK 3. ) WAN SALINA BT WAN ISMAIL 4. ) HO WENG SENG

duties and role of a stakeholder - obligation or burden of a stakeholder when a stakeholding term fulfilled - obligation of a stakeholder when stakeholding terms not renewed - has the requirement "pending all avenues of appeal" been fulfilled when an appeal is struck out & not heard on its merits - Section 6 Limitation Act 1953 - Section 22 Limitation Act 1953 - Section 22 (1) Limitation Act 1953 only applies when there is the existence of fraud or when the trustee is in possession of the trust property

15/01/2024

Tuan Tan Chiew King

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b84b1035-5763-4fdd-b10c-e1adf81f71ff&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR [CB-A72NCvC-4-01/2022] PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD [No. Syarikat: 12557-W] … PLAINTIF DAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1] The Plaintiff, an insurance company, sought for the recovery of a sum of RM41,000.00 from the Defendants jointly as partners of a law firm. [2] A full trial was held. The Plaintiff called Shoba a/p Manickam (No. K/P: 811101-07-5634), the Plaintiff’s Claims Manager, while Rosni 1. ROSNI BINTI ZAHARI 2. FRANCIS TAN JENG LOK 3. WAN SALINA BT WAN ISMAIL 4. HO WENG SENG (Rakan kongsi yang beramal sebagai Tetuan Rosni, Francis Tan & Ho (Peguambela dan Peguamcara) dan didakwa sebagai satu firma) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 15/01/2024 16:22:27 CB-A72NCvC-4-01/2022 Kand. 45 S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 binti Zahari (No. K/P: 610411-03-5338) as the first Defendant took the stand as the Defendants’ sole witness (“SD1”). BACKGROUND [3] A motor accident claim in the Sessions Court of Temerloh (“Sessions Court”) was filed by one Mohd Sani bin Abdul Mubin (“Mohd Sani”) and Aryanto Daruis bin Ahmad (“Aryanto Daruis”) against one Mohd Farid bin Mohd Alif (“Mohd Farid”) for a motor vehicle accident on 28 October 2010. [4] The Plaintiff was the insurer for Mohd Farid. [5] The Defendants, being partners in a law firm known as Messrs Rosni, Francis Tan & Ho, represented Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis. [6] The Sessions Court judgment dated 7 December 2007 awarded damages to Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis for the sum of RM173,676.89 with costs of RM9,149.00, amounting to a total sum of RM182,825.89 (hereinafter referred to as “the judgement sum”). An appeal was filed by the Plaintiff. [7] Nevertheless, in complying with the said judgment, the Plaintiff being the insurer of Mohd Farid paid the judgement sum to the Defendants being the solicitors of Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis on 30 May 2008 on the following conditions:- S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 i. that 70% of the judgement sum is to be released to Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis; and ii. that 30% of the judgement sum to be held in an interest bearing account held by the Defendants as stakeholders pending “all avenues of our (the Plaintiff’s) appeal” for the case (hereinafter referred to as “the said 30%”). [8] Not long after, the appeal was struck out by the High Court on 27 Mac 2009 due to the failure of the Plaintiff to file written submissions as instructed. [9] The Defendants claim that on the same day, a letter was written to the solicitors of the Plaintiff informing them that the said 30% will be released to Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis. As the Defendants did not receive a response, the said 30% was released to Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis. [10] The Plaintiff filed an application to reinstate the appeal via a notice of motion dated 14 April 2009. However, according to SD1, the Defendants were only given notice of this application on 27 April 2009, 1 month after the initial appeal was struck out. The appeal was successfully reinstated on 19 June 2009. [11] The appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court was finally heard in the High Court on 29 July 2009. The High Court reduced the quantum of damages by RM26,000.00 and RM15,000.00 for Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis respectively (accumulated sum of RM41,000.00). S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [12] The Plaintiff did not take any action for the return of the accumulated sum of RM41,000.00 from the Defendants until a first letter of demand was sent to the Defendants on 15 February 2019. Subsequently the claim before this court was filed, not against Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis, but against their solicitors, the Defendants in this case. THE ISSUES [13] The agreed issues to be tried are as follows: i. Whether the Defendants are stakeholders for the balance 30% for the judgment sum dated 7 December 2007? ii. Whether the Defendants are trustees for the Plaintiff? iii. Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred? [14] I will first deal with the issue of whether the Plaintiff’s claim is time- barred before dealing with the First and Second issues together. LIMITATION PERIOD [15] The Plaintiff is of the view that the Defendants are holding the said 30% as trustees for the Plaintiff. Hence, by virtue of paragraph 22(1)(b) Limitation Act 1953 [Act 254], there is no period of limitation that applies to the Plaintiff’s claims towards the Defendants as trustees. S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [16] On this issue, I do not agree with the Plaintiff’s submission that paragraph 22(1)(b) Limitation Act 1953 applies here. Subsection 22(1) Limitation Act 1953 states:- “(1) No period of limitation prescribed by this Act shall apply to an action by a beneficiary under a trust, being an action— (a) in respect of any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or privy; or (b) to recover from the trustee trust property or the proceeds thereof in the possession of the trustee, or previously received by the trustee and converted to his use.” [17] I refer to the case of Dato Wira A Nordin Mohd Amin & Ors v Rajoo Selvappan & Ors [2007] 5 MLJ 297 that has clearly explained the application of both paragraphs:- “So under sub-s (a) of s 22(1), there must be the element of fraud or fraudulent breach of trust. And under sub-s (b) of s 22(1), the trust property must be in the possession of the trustee or he has in possession of the proceeds thereof.” [18] In the case before me, there is no evidence adduced that the Defendants are still in possession of the monies claimed by the Plaintiff. As such, paragraph 22(1)(b) Limitation Act 1953 would not apply. S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [19] It is my view, a more accurate provision under section 22 Limitation Act 1953 would be subsection 22(2) which states:- “an action by a beneficiary to recover trust property or in respect of any breach of trust, not being an action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by any other provision of this Act, shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the right of action accrued.” [20] Be that as it may, I also refer to the case of Merais Sdn Bhd v Lai King Lung & Anor (both practicing as Advocate and Solicitor in the name and style of Messrs Chris Lai, Yap & Partners) [2019] 11 MLJ 690. In that case, the plaintiff’s case centred around a claim for the sum of RM14,936,742.39 which was the balance sum remaining in trust monies from a sum of RM39,480,000 that was deposited by the plaintiff in the client’s account of the defendants, who acted as solicitors for the plaintiff in the sale of a building. [21] His Lordship Akhtar Tahir J when determining that the plaintiff’s claim is time-barred, had the following to say: - “[25] As a final determination taking into account the above factors the plaintiff is entitled to the balance remaining in the defendant’s firm’s account after deducting the authorised withdrawal, however bearing one important disclaimer that the claim of the money should have been made within the stipulated period as stated in s 6 of the Limitation Act 1953: S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (1) Save as hereinafter provided the following actions shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, that is to say — (a) actions founded on a contract or on tort; (b) actions to enforce a recognisance; (c) actions to enforce an award; (d) actions to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any written law other than a penalty or forfeiture or of a sum by way of penalty or forfeiture. (2) An action for an account shall not be brought in respect of any matter which arose more than six years before the commencement of the action. [26] Herein, the last instruction given by the plaintiff as mentioned in their own pleaded case was on 25 July 2007 and the plaintiff first attempt to recover the balance of trust monies was six years later when the letter of demand date 7 November 2013 issued to the defendants and filed this suit on 17 December 2013. The plaintiff’s claim was therefore time- barred and the court so ruled.” (emphasis is mine) [22] In the case before this court, the final judgement of the Temerloh High Court was on 29 July 2009, in which the High Court reduced the quantum of damages by RM41,000.00. As such, time S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 commenced to run from 29 July 2009 and the Plaintiff should have filed its claim on or before 28 July 2015. The first letter of demand from the Plaintiff to the Defendants was on 15 February 2019 and the suit before this court was only filed in January 2022. I find that the Plaintiff has exceeded the time of six years to file a claim against the Defendants under the Limitation Act 1953 and this claim is therefore barred by limitation. [23] The Plaintiff’s claim can thus be dismissed for being time-barred alone. However, for the sake of completeness, I shall address the first two issues as well. ARE THE DEFENDANTS STILL STAKEHOLDERS/HOLDING THE SAID 30% ON TRUST FOR THE PLAINTIFF UPON THE STRIKING OUT OF THE HIGH COURT APPEAL [24] It is not in dispute that the Defendants held the said 30% as stakeholders for the Plaintiff. The Defendants themselves in their submissions admitted that they held the said 30% as stakeholders. [25] To discern the duties and role of a stakeholder, I refer to the Supreme Court case of Toh Theam Hock v Kemajuan Perwira Management Corporation Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 MLJ 116 where His Lordship Hashim Yeop A Sani SCJ explained:- “What is in essence stakeholding? The word "stake" is in common parlance used to apply to any money to be disposed of in accordance with what may happen in future: and whoever is in possession of the money is often described as a S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 stakeholder. The manner in which the money is to be disposed of depends on the terms on which it is held.” [26] The main issue at hand is, when the High Court struck off the Plaintiff’s appeal from the Sessions Court on 27 March 2009, whether the Defendants ceased or continued to be stakeholders. Subsequently, should the Defendants still be holding the said 30% as trustees for the Plaintiff. [27] To this, the stakeholding terms can be found in the letter dated 30 May 2008 from the Plaintiff to the Defendants. [28] The said letter contains the following: - “We enclose herewith the MBB cheque no 222210 for the sum of RM182,825.89 payable under your client account being the judgement sum inclusive of interest and costs as full and final settlement with your undertaking of the matter which 70% of the amount is to be released to your client and the balance 30% be placed in an interest bearing account and held by yourself as stakeholders pending all avenues of our appeal and as agree by Dato Rosni binti Zahari refund RM713.03 on SD 2% to be return.” (emphasis is mine) [29] It is my finding that as soon as the High Court had struck out the Plaintiff’s appeal on 27 March 2009, no appeal existed in the courts. S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 At that point, Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis held the rightful claim to the said 30%. [30] I find the action of the Defendants in releasing the said 30% to Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis to be reasonable and not in contravention to the stakeholding terms as stated in the Plaintiff’s letter dated 30 March 2008. [31] As soon as the appeal was struck out, the stakeholding terms ceased to have effect and Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis held the rightful claim towards the said 30%. In my view, “all avenues of our appeal” would be deemed completed once there was no active appeal on record, ie when the appeal was struck out by the High Court on 27 March 2009. [32] Hence, the Defendants were not incorrect in releasing the monies as soon as the appeal was struck out. Holding the said 30% any longer would have deprived Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis of what rightfully belonged to them. [33] Moreover, the Plaintiff did not inform nor indicate to the Defendant of their intention to reinstate its appeal immediately after the appeal was struck out. [34] A notice of motion dated 14 April 2009 was only served on the Defendants on 27 April 2009 which was 1 month after the appeal was struck out. S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [35] As a consequence of the Plaintiff’s actions (or non-actions), I find that it was reasonable for the Defendants to not deprive their clients of what was rightfully theirs. [36] In addition, no obligation or burden should be placed upon the Defendants to continue to hold the monies in anticipation of some future indefinite and unspecified course of action by the Plaintiff. I find that as soon as there was no active appeal on record, and no further information/instructions of any new stakeholding term from the Plaintiff, the Defendants’ role as trustees to the Plaintiff ceased to have effect and it was then their duty as stakeholders and solicitors to Mohd Sani and Aryanto Daruis to ensure their clients’ rights and interests were protected. CONCLUSION [37] Based on the foregoing reasons above, I hold that the Plaintiff failed to prove its case on a balance of probabilities. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs’ claim is time-barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1953. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs of RM6000 awarded to the Defendants. TAN CHIEW KING Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Temerloh 15 January 2024 S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Pihak-pihak: Rajakumaran Muthusamy (Tetuan Ram Yogan Sivam) untuk Plaintif Ahmad Nizam bin Hamid (Tetuan Sazali & Lim) untuk Defendan- defendan S/N NRBLuGNX3UxDOGtB9x/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-25-268-07/2021

PEMOHON MMSB CONSULT SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) YAP CHIN WAH

Judicial Review - The Applicant filed applications for an order of Certiorari to quash the decisions of the Industrial Court dated 22.4.2021 pursuant to a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the 2nd Respondents whereby the Industrial Court had found the 2nd Respondents had been dismissed without just cause or excuse - Whether there was genuine redundancy.

15/01/2024

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c451c0f7-f9fe-489d-9111-f55e11c88592&Inline=true

15/01/2024 15:38:16 WA-25-268-07/2021 Kand. 33 S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 98BRxP75nUiREfVeEciFkg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25—2ss—o7/2021 Kand. 33 15/01/2n2L 15:32-16 mwn rmmmm TINGGI MALAVA nu mun LDIIPUR mum wnuvm Psnssxurum xum umpun. muvsu Aammum KuAsA.xuAsA mus» wzmonmum uunug gamuom K‘ENA>GMfl go wA‘z5-255477/2021 Dnlsm pevkarz Award Mnhkamah Perusahaan No ass raw. 2921 bonankh 2242021 can dflenma olen Pemomn pad: zuzuzw dalam Kai Mahkanuh Perusanaanua A/4—us3/I9‘ Dan Dalam pemara mm uavmnmrun umuk Penman Csmoran‘ Dan Dawn pmm Seksyan zu ma Pemubcmgan Puusahaan 1957. Dan Dalam ualkala mengenav Janus! 1 Am Mihkamah Kahildmnn mu. Dan Dz\am perkara Amvan 53 xaeaanxaeaan Muhkamah 2012 ANYARA mass co-uunsnn am Pmvwhon am 1 M-mm-n mum. nn Mallyslx 2 Viv cum. wan Raspondenrfissponaen Heard logelharwnh / Dwdengar hersnml Due : .« 15 sm naskxwan nzwmm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! mum runxnmm mom MALAVA on nun; LLIMPUR mum wuunu pznszxuvum xugu umvuw. uuuwsu rsarucuu KUASA-KLIASA xrusr PERMOHOMAN unrux ssmxnu KEI1AKlM5y ug WA~25~lEI—(I7/1021 Dnlam perkam Award Mankamah Puusahean No as: Yahun 2021 xmunn. 2242021 can mlenma oxen Pemahcn mu. 294202: dahm Kas Mnhkamnh Pelusahaan No A/44484/19 Dan uawam penars susm pemmmnin umuk Penman Cemoran‘ Dan Dalam Devkzm Seksyen 2a ma Pemummgnn Puruuhaan I961‘ Dan Dawn nencava mennenax Jaduzl v. Akla Mahkamah Kahakrmnn 1994. Dun Dalam perkala Alumn 53 Kaeaamcaeaan Mankzmnh 2m: ANTARA Muss Conlull San am: Pemomn om 1 u-mum.» Ptmsahnn Mmym 2. Ln Khurn vmg Resvnnden-Resmnden mm Iogalmr Mm / Dwdengav naruma mu Mxs sm naskxwan nzwmm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 9 However‘ the law has now developed to allow a dacrslon lo be challenged on gvourlds O9 Illegallly and lrratlonalllyl which then permus ma Coulis Io scru|inIzs me daclsrorl no| only lurlhe process but also for substance 10 ll rs sellled law lrlal lhe mgr: courl mu rml rrrlerlara wllh a denislon af me lnduslrial cuurl unless ll can be eslaulrsned lrral lrre declsion ls lnlecled wlm errors ol law. 11 The mearung afermv or law has also been explalned bylhe oourl ol Appeal m we case or syarlkal Kondman ulelayu Kelaman and v. 1 nlpnfl wcnlm Unlon mus) l MLRA zec; mes] 2 cu 743; [1995] 2 MR 1601; [1995] 2 MLJ 311 ln lhe lollowrrrg words. “It ls nellherlus nor dull hle In name: In Ixhnulhvl dufinluun 0! mm Imnunll no In trier M I... rm me calagurles on such an error are no! uased. But [I may In 3 u am In urrnv av law would bd diwloud il ma declslon-ullklr uks hlmsell me umng qnnsliun urum lnlo account mlmm cnnlldlrluons nr orun. Ia uh nlo Ixnurll ulovnnk clmslflevallons [whal may be wnvemenlly lermed an Anlsmmn: errerldr ifhl mllcnrllllull In mm of y um ul-mu. ar ruluppll. or mlssulu a pvlncvnle ulme an ml l.Iw ~ lemphasls added) 12 surularly, ln me case ofAlrsp:-:1 Manug-mom sarvlcu Sdn Bhd v. Col (3) Human: Sinuh cluugur slngll man] 1 MLRA cu; [zoos] 4 CL! 17, me Conn 01 Appeal held lhal an erroneous lrllerenee an «acne ls also an error at law wmch would warram an arderafceninvari - "On me alive! hand. we mean. M course. mu :1 u armr-ly usmpolanl lar ma wan Own WI cenmarl pvoceedlnas la dlsagvaa Wllhlhs lrrduslnal Calm on me corlcrusllms or lruereuass avawn by Ihe lane! lmm me pruvea ar aammaa evldence an lru wound lira! no reasenaula lnlmrul xlmllany clrcumslanued would have aimed ax such a wncllslon or drawn such an lmerence An urnmoul lumm. hum puma urldmilhd llcu ll 71 armor um um In um Mlacv." (emphasls added) 13 ll ls lrua |ha| the ngm la reorgamsa ls a marlagenal prervgallve as firmly eslabllshed ln lmlliam Junk: 5 co (M) Bhd u. s. aalasingam {mo} 1 MELR 312; [1996] 2 MLRA an; [1997] 3 Due 11 of 15 sru naakxvrsru Rzvl/.EauFw “Nair s.r.r nuvlhnrwm .. UIQG u may r... urwlrullly -mm: glam. Vfl muua war AMR 2565: [I997] 3 CL! 235 wherein me Coun of Appeal had also defined ‘rarenchmenl as follows. — 191 - Reuenchmem means “the ensename afsumlus Inbuuruv staff by In nmnlru/Iv Yer nny mason whalloavsr mnemse than as a pumshmem mlhcled by way aldlscvphnary a¢lKm'[ 1 [ma] Whether Irv: retmnchmam exerdse m a pamcum and u Dona me or almrvnu‘ m a quesuon M lacl ma ufdsgrnt dlpendmq Iur Ils resomlvon upon me Deeulwr has and arcumslances av each case n u will- nlllnd mu m Impluynrl cmlllcd In mum ms mu. In an manner he can u bus 59 lung: as man manag pm" a mmuua born - mu daelnlon LI lmmum mun ulminnllon mn by Ina Induslrlal Cmm Nawaver me mdusinzl Cowl e empowered. and mdeen aumaoum, la wwesugalz me has and wwmstances m a Dimcular new to delevmme wvvalhar um uumsu m power was In 13:1 Dona me ‘ (emphass adaed) 14 In cnowon Mn ylll Lxmmd v. um chm Hoek 5 Anal [2911] MLRHU 1:30 min CLJII 2321. me Hugh Cmm likewise scaled me nnnounte as vouaws. ~ 1171 'ln dlsrmssvvg me an Respcmdsnls oumermon and auowmg me Appucanls appueazm m. Cmm mm mm ca...m...a um Aupnnunm Dcullmn and Inmnnl «am .. ... umwlunv mm‘ as ml agumum plemgallvt 49 dead: IM puneues, snmegles mm ruqulrumnnl won - nmmunng or uovuunizlllon mm -- ma] Al an empwoyer, m. Appllclnlhrtl Inn «mm: mm: and volume of as Vnbnur me. ennsnsmn mm «In om.n.mm.~s olakzllvu ma flmcllun. mm novylnlullon we. mm conuquem In ncmmmlc and mm mnnngamunl o4 cm bum-es. an: no sowlne al smm of its umplnyees were mm to o. ndunflanl or nxculrv um . mu aemon w. axccuhd In me um. um scum usln nnnnunlsllo vlcl mlsalhmnfns employns, a ployu wu mun Incordlngly mama to uiummc mu n-mun axons (emphasis added) 15 The above decxswon was amrmea by we own at Appeal vme cwu Apnea! Na W-0I(A)»38—D1/2017 u... 1: .7: :5 sm naakxvvsn nzwmm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! The dlcisloll onus com a. That me lndusl I Court had erred in last and new when ll mlauppllad lne lugal prlnplples gonnnno lo ndundlncy and rezr-nenrnen . Ipoolflcullyr when it lrwnncllily epnelndnd (hit me 2"‘ Respnn cult‘: employment contract could only In valldly lerlrllrlalod lollowlng me oorllpl ' n ar lerrninaxlen ol lns LRT3 Prolscl. b. Thenhe Industrial Court had -rred ln um and law when l had concluded lnnl - voliundnncy um n cauld only nrlse upon the callullalloll or lallure of the LRT3 Pruisrrl; as, Havlrlg perused me lndnslnal cdurrs Award. I am of lhe vlew lhal lne lnduslrlal Conn erred ln [ad and law when ll wncluded lnel a redundancy sllualiun could Mlly arlse .n «he clrcurvlslarlces exphcllly slaled V1 clause 14 do me 2"= Respondenrs empldymenl cdnlram 17 we can be gleaned lrom lne Award of me learned cnemnan when he slaled as lpllows - 1291 rp pul nelenny I! lheappolrllmerllsolall lhe clennnnls W51! an 3 fixed lenn contract at O31Vlp|€}yVYV5/V|.F|llS|llIIIl\‘) clause 14 of me Claimants‘ uppulnunenl leners, me Cnmnllly :In only unnlnsu Iilnlr urvlcu ldr lne followlnll nawns av qruulvdl m uppn ln. cumplnllorl M on assifillmnrll lulvltly lhl Pro:-cl or on Where the cllenl lnslructs . ch np. of lurwrl dun to Illcnlrlpwullcu nr noll pmenn-nee an pull of on Clnlmnmx ur mu mm mm: dull nel cnmnluhv ll: count pr l- unnlnsud by me cllenl ahead afschedu w enmr 5 s m. [291 By ineerpominp an virlulls grounds or reasons (or which me clurn-me can In lennlnmd «nun Ihnlromploynlulli. nu Company rnex-s ll nblllldnntlyclullhal on Company wlll not tcmllvulo mo cl mam: lune : coodmuns Ind lbuvl hid nulmatlnlli-d ur cryuulllud um! um corllinnnlu kl pm-n. n IlIlp|9ylIllrl| nnlu ln. expi 011?: r d tnml colllracl or me 1-mllrnenr nllhe colldinoll -xpv Ind In cl...“ 14 man. »...ueus em BaBRxP75n Rzwnzaflw «we. Smnl ...n.mn n. LAIQ4 m my n. ewnmun em. m.n.n n. nFluNG vtmxl xaq In lhn Ivunl me Pmjefl ma en 1119 camp!!!» as cnnrse or me unnnnmn by an cmnunuu of eeneame men nu Colnpnny could nonihly Iuccud in ll: cormnlion mm vitw 91 um Ialluu ea In: Propel In complu: [Is mm or Ina! n was xennunaxee by on Cllunt an a of Ichndnl . glnulllu ridulldincy Illuuion nee Instr: glvmg eawn rm me Company In vvuvgamse or venmmure us argamsnnon wmch may my load m renenunnenz er me cnnnenu u there was sulvlusufi libaw [:51 Tm Company was charmnu mlanlnun vman fllaamglha Iermmamn an an we malmanh met me reason my such (srvmnahun was an account L71 clause ueune npnumlmam Valle! al all me c mnnlsyemn wldunu bdon ma. Calm quit: many uannm in fify me Iuvminilvovl enn- CI-lmanu pm-an: m clnuu u In none ohm confllllnn ma down In mu» 1: van magma junnynne (M kmnlnntlon of .u an Elaimlnls. me ounducl M the Company In Iannlnalmg me cnennanrs pursulm In damn M0! the appomlmanl mum wn ch-lly m mean 0! me mannanus mnlran no e-npneymenn wvlh me Company mat ensures :eeun|y ac nun let me dumhon no men me (am: eennaexs nl ampvuymem ' (emphasis added] 15 Based on me above finding. me Veamed cnainnen had apphed a resmcluve |nlerpve|a|>on cllha (ervmnalion clause eune Empbyrnenl Conlract smoe |he Veamed chamnen nad made a findmy (hit me provision at (Mans: 14 of me Emplaymenl cunuacx had to be sausfiad nevme me 2"-1 Reepenaenrs amplnymenl could be tervrwlated for any reason, Incmdlng redundancy. 19 However, .n eennng In hvs lindmg. lhe Iearnee Chairman nea vauee to oonsxder me express residual ngm lo Cermmale me agreement repcsed no mm pemes as envisaged m Clause 14 as mews. — --14 Tunnlnitlml Yemlmnlmn n anon wmplelron of ma lnlgnmem av when the menu wnslmcls a change at nelson due to mmmpexence or mn-performance an yourwewotflme Fmmxdoau nmeempme ns eeumer xslemu \ a by me wen! areas of sc)1edu\a wmchever vs earhet Eixhu puny mnlmllnx an. ngm In umnin n ma lppnlnlnllnl hyulvlny not me min lwo mnlllhs nofict in writing me u .: :5 sm nusfixvvsn nan/gem «wn. smuw ...n.mn s. U... n vsfly n. nrW\n|H|Y mum: mmn VI mum v-max 20. 21. 22 23. 24. Gmmty mu nu| be pm In ynu n yuu apl In Iovlmnale yam services wan ms Compmy pm. In Ilwmmaflun or Inn P-clad ma aumeu In ma Drum: hzndma my man documsms. elc' Kernnlwasws added) Based on the abave CIauss14,|I|s clear IJ1a\ the express condmans var termmahon macs to me auwmane mmmauen Mme eonuscl in urcumsv.-mes outsme me fixed term duration Mme contract, and nolhvng precruasa me Appucanl rmm (ermmanng the 2'“ Respundenfs empbymcnl {or any ulnar vahd reasons such as mxsmndun, poor penmmanoe or, as m me msvam case‘ redundancy Therelore‘ I vvew mat by hohmg that the 2"‘ Raspondenfs Iermmalvnn could only vanmy came about by sausiymg me spacmc eenamons lislsd in Chusa 14 of ms empluymanl conlrach the Indusmal cam had oecasxaned a clear ermv or Vaw by (army to apply me appmpnaxe principles cl law which arise in mnneclxon war: a claim at redundancy. Further‘ I am 07 the view that the lnduslnal Court, by ounflnlng Its vwew lo ms cundlhuns set out w Claus: 14 of (he amp\nymen| contract, lawled Io app\y the correct law or to ask usew me Iundamenlm queslxon as In whether a redundancy swluahon had‘ In ‘aw and VI Vad, ansen based on the cimumsvanees of |hB case. Upon perusal al me evidence produced beiove the uxausuial court, 1 find thal lhe Malaysvan Govemman| had dlrecfly suspended and placed me um Propel under review, mandaung than an stakeholders H1 Ihe LRT3 Frcqecl immemen! stringent oos| oplimwsllmn. The Malayswan Govammenls review culminated in a reslrucmnng of (he enlwe LRT3 Fmgech wmch mcmded sigmflcam changes such as an extended umehne for eompnemn from me to 2024 and a raduchcn In various deliverahles In Arkflek Akiprima Sdn Bhd v. Lllng slew Fate 5 Anor [2001] 1 MELR As: [2002] 1 ILR «so, me IndusInalCom1 considered that me enema! mnuenoe oflhe govemmenl uomd consmule a basis for retrenchmenl when n held Inler aha as iouows — ‘ wnsmsrme grounds «mme rE|renchmen| gwan by emmuyev are we met V5, vmemermeve had m lac: names a mum" m me uusmess ol the comparwdun m cwcumslances such as scamny uv raw rnituual an up :5 av :5 sm iaafixvvsn Rzwazn-Fw “Nun: sum lunhnrwm .. med u my u. mum-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! lne avzrlabllny 0! WNCI1 lne running suns lazlury depends ulsuwpaan :1 warn nndar ma mar. M ma wovnmmt 4, or thing In nnoln whlcrl made n lrnaossllan to commul ma huslmsl Ixnblal a less or on rrraagra pmllu ' (emphasls added) 25 Premlsed on me almye and revlewmq lne evldence lnal has been adduced. l am dune Vlew me learned Chalrrnan lalled la adnslder mal me Appllcanrs decision |o reonganlse lls buslness operalmna was a Dona fide exemlse ln response to external loroes whlch could not be deprecaled or Ignored The Malayslan sdyernrnenl nad dlracuy suspended and revlewed me LRT3 Pmjech culmlnahng ln srgnmcanl changes m we same. specifically an exlendad llmellns lar oomplellon and reduulons Io varlaus delweranles 25 The lnduslnal Courl lalled Ia adequalely cansrder lne apprdprlale legal |esl as lo wnsmer a genulne redundancy sllualmn has ansen, and had hereby rrnsdlrecled lzsall 17! law and racl Thal ma lndusmal coun nan arrad ln fact and law and had lakan lnlo conaldar n inalavam rnauars whorl It had concluded that ma Appncam was required to omain me pannlsslan nl Praaarnna andlor MRCE-GK lo I-rmlnmn ma urvico (1! ma 2'" Raapondam. 27 on «ma lssue. naylng perused me learned cnaxrmans Award, he nas come to me lallawing llndlngs: - 1:3) ay making Ihls slalemerll me Campirly nannally cnrluadlx that n .5 human by me canflmons lald dawn VI me appomlmenl letter dared me as me and ma lmnnlry cl Flrlanoa maul: release Now: r nowhere lnuna slrucllovlfrlml the Cllenllurlhe casl Opvflmlsal n are». ay ma ulalayalnr. Guvlmmlnl van that any lnnmeum var lne company In Iumlinalu any of ma kly aaraannal. "ll Cumplny was also mx able to show «nus cenn any such Ilulruchnnl mun cm clsarn orEmployIr|h.I| purm n had bun ob ad for ma bumllullon of any :0 [Is employee. rn runs century tn ma my wndlllon lmpo d ay lhl Emmy-r aa mi ln me lelmera aaauinun-nxdaud ns.nI.znIs. n ms absence nl any lnauucuon (ram ma Ellinl or Emplnylr u anylaagad ln ma mm olaapolnnnnrn damd nuuzola on ma snannaa to um um al kty pllsonml wnhoul any war wflllen approval will run comrny me 16 9! x5 srn aaamrsn nznr.zam «nu. s.nn nuvlhnrwm a. med m my r... nflmnaflly sum. dnuuvlanl y. .nuna Wm! 1:: nu: mm M lppnlnlmnnl «mm aa.na.2o1e ind clnuse u aflhe uppolnlmnnl mm at on cuvnnnu - (emphasis added) 23 Based an one above Award of me learned Cnawnan. «ms cmm vnews Ina! me lnduslnal Court had made an error when wt had consumed \ha| based an the terms or me Vsuer 01 appmmmem as helween me Apphcam, Prassrana and MRCEVGK. clear mslruclinns andluv permlssxon had Ia be gwen la the Apphcanl nevuve m wmd vahdw dwsrmss me 2"“ Respondent 29. 1 am e! me mew that the wearned Chairman‘: nnamgs on «ms Issue are pervevse and enuneaus m law and m (am because: - 29.1 Any alleged ncn—ccmphanr:e mm the provlsxons 01 me agreement between me Apphclnl, Prasarana, and MRCBVGK has no beanng whatsoever on me que as m wneme: a buna flde redundancy suuauon nas ansen 29 2 There 15 newher any emphzymem nor any con|rac\ua\ rexamnsnrp baxween me 2M Rapondem and Prasarana and/or MRCB-GK, and lherelore the absence (:1 any appmva\ or pervrussnen fmm Chase emilles does not vinale the vahdwly Many veksnchment by the Appficanl. so runner, nms ceun \s of me new that even :1 (here Is any such non- compliance‘ vf Itexwsled, m wumd be a canlracluen mspme between me Applncam. Fuasayana and/ov NRCB-GK, and mus, me Induslnm caun had mlsdileaed nsew wn law by hmdvng that me terms of me agreement be\ween the Appncam, Frasarana, and MRCB—GK were delerrmnahve anne empmyrnenk relanonsmp belween me Apphcanl and me 2"“ Responuem. 11. Th! Indllllrial Court and In Iolml oi II (I whln I! found that the :05! review carriad out by (hi Manayuan Government had nofi yal hlln mad: on III! dill of Illmlnatlon 01 (III 2"‘ RIl|'JDrIdll1l’I nrvlcm wh Iby (Ila Indul Cour! d In take into nccnunt lhc comonls of me Inlslry of Finam:|'s puss nluu filled 12.7.2|‘lII announcing lhl VflY|D|l5 mnlurn I0 rlducl In! con! Ind mom of tho LRT3 FFOJOG1. v... 17 M 25 m uaamnnu.aav.anm «wn. snn ...n.mn n. U... a may n. nflmnnflly -mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa v-max e. we lnduslnal Court enred n fact wilulu n lallad Io nlvn due eonsldsrauon to tho ml sl Ind vndlspuled laols, sooellloally ms mmuru to mm. m. ml and no»! onus um wmlecl announced by the Mlnlsny of Flnnnco had ruullld m a Vlflnctloll In lhl App||=-Int‘: personllol rcqlllrvlvlonll. 3|. Hlnd (hat the lnduslrlal Court had mlsdlrecled use}! when concluded lha| the cosl VGVISW exercise had not laken place at lhe llme the 2"’ Respondent‘: servloe was lermlnated and lalled Ia corlslder lne measures annevnoed by me Malays.-en eevernmenl aocordlng lo lhe out review exemlse 32. I find the finding of the learned Challman on (his lssue Is agalllsl and/or contrary to he Malaysian GmIarnn1erIl's awn pless release daled 12 7 ma‘ vvrnen makes expressly clear we ouleome or us oosl opllmlsalicrl exerclse ln lms respect. me Mlrllslry ol Flnanoe had stand lnler Illa as [allows lrl the sand prass lvlenss. - me nnal lolal cosl M me man Fn»ec1 IS reduced by 47% llum RMCH es ollon ro amass bllllorl savng Malaysans e lolal el RM15 oz olllon vnlseasx wlll lnclmt pmilcxcosll lncludmg bul not lvnnad no Walk Fackagl Comlacls lWPEsy land Bmulsllmn. pmpcl mznagemem covliuluncy fun‘ opemlsorlzl and overnead eosls. as well as lnlalesl durlng mnsllumlun r (emphasls added) (See Enclosurn 3 ol plan 2:1 _ 261) 33. The Minlslry lurlner nlgnllgnls eaveral key respecls ln wnlen lne costs ler lhe LRT3 Pmled had been ophmlsed, lncludmg reduorng me seooe ellne pmlecl, exlendlng lne eumplellan Ilmehne by four eddrlronsl years and convemng lne plulecl lrom a PDF model no a fixed onoe model :4. This IS luflher corroboraled oy me undispu|ed laol lnal wmle me Malayslen Government nad announoed me oonvalslan ol lhe LRT3 Project llorn me FDP model lo lne fixed onoe model‘ lne aolual novallon agreernenl was only slgrled on 22.2.2u1e 35 I find lnal lne sleps which followed me Malayslarl Governmenrs press release were clearly lakerl lo lmplemsnl declslcns lnal had already been made‘ oonlrary lo we lnduslnal couns findlrlg man an. n of X5 am aaamrsn aznr.zar»o «we. Smnl luvlhnrwm a. d... a mm he anvn.l-v MW: dnuavlml v. nFluNa penal 1ne ac|ua\ ocsn opnnnnsannon exermse nan also no\ naken place an me hme nna cnanrnams were Iamuna|ed' as The Indusnnan Cam ansa canned to consider Ihe malenal eneans or me changes announced Dy me Malaysnan Govamnnenn vnde nna press Mlesse dated 12 7 2012‘ m yaflicular, "15 reduction II’! the scale 0! nne mm Pmnecn and an exnension annne pmject hmshnswhere nna Applncam was reqmred no do ness wnrk over a longer period on nnns. 37 More irnponannny, I find man me 7"’ Responaenn had oornoaded ounng nne prooeeding belore nna nnoosnnan caunn nnan ms changes annuunaau oy nne Mnnnslry an Fmance nn July 2013 would noqnma resnruclunng by me Appnicann ‘[5] o nsnnagaan no you mm nmongnolhnrlhnngs axlandmg nn. smaon daadlms by new addnbonal years would nnanananny anvacn ma namre. smpe ano nnlemnly M wnvk Involved Maannng no say Balm-e lhns ma Cumuiny waum luv: :2. -xuacn-a na mun an as oannvanaones by 2020 mwn had nnnnnn 2u24m mean essennally nn. um: [M lvuenaalrverablls se wurk would be mom splat! nu! Agvse or dnsagraa” A ween} n u <2 mm on an onns cnangss announcsd byxhe Mnn-nrym Fmanoen hom ma reduomn nnwsnsnonna vavnous changes no ms wupo oilhu LRT3 Frunscl annn ma levuad umalnna n pu| Ma ymn man. nn orderlo aowmmodzlz lhme charwes me Company was rammed In masses: Ind mllruclure Mi ananc womng on ma Pvuped Agree urdIsagru7 A var as. aasaa on nne aornnssnon Mine 2"“ Respondent above. me Inannsnnan courn had committed a sanaus error m fan ay falling no mnslder nns subsvannnve nrnuacn cl nna cnanges announced by nna Manaysnan Government on n2.7.2ons ano suhssquemly nmplemeruad by me Applncanln Prasarana and MRCB-GK. and wnanner ma sama wound gnve nse no a bone fide redundancy snnnanion. 39 Indeed‘ m savaran cases. such as‘ camr Pu an no Sdn and v. Sharmirni Devil [2000] I MELR 1:2; man) I ILR 302. me Induslnal Conn nas tuned with approval ma vouawnng passage nonn Harvey on |nduMrna\Cour1(Vo1 1)v Fur 15 ans sm saaamsn azn/.za.rnn “Nana sanun navnhnrwm a. met! a my n... anmnauly am. flnunmnl n. mum v-man 1». sumvlest Ivan of nflundulcy mm wmn ms mmnsss mm. mm vmuloyt - of whunvn mm. n my a. um um. :- . nc umn, and mm Business mas mm umnlay-Ix buuuu :1 II opnmllny will! 3 nduud outrun. sun ms: "nu nul be so. Yheve can just as wan be . mdundarvcy svluahcn when: we rmmaaa acmevas the same oreveu an mueasefl nuv.nu| mm leweremplvyees. ma can come about Ihlough mechumulmn av cnmpulnnulmn m ‘I111 by mcreasad aomsvmy (empnass added) 40. Funhar, me mgr. Cuurl m we case at Slupllln Bong V. FOB (M Sdn Bhd & Anor [1999] 5 MLRH 107; mm 3 MLJ 411heldlha|- [<21 im nollm lnwihnl ndundlncy In mun» orwam no Ionuu Ridundincy silulfinnx an vmnm the nusnnsss requires kwlr Imploylu at whmwrklnd mmsy on lndusmm Duspulzsl (emphasis added) 41 Gwen the above. «ms com vs nf me view (ha| by lalhng lo lake mlo oansmeramn me matenai xmpscl of me cas1 remew exemse announced by me Malaysian Govemmenl, the wmpugned Awavd cnnlzins malena\ mfirmmes of facl and law, m mac n «ans |o adequately apprecvale lha| as a resuh a1 me sa exercwse, wmcn resmled m an exxsnaaa deadlme and a redudmn us (he scope 01 me LRT3 Projecl. ma Anphcanl reqmred lewer employees to do me work 01012 2"’ Responaam. 42 Adam to (haL I a\so find that not omy am the Inausmal coun reach an vrauanal conclusmn when n new mm me east review exemsa announced was me grass release had ya! la occur ax me me me 2"“ Respundenrs serwces were lermmated, but u had a\su failed m consider the actual effed at the exemss on me LRT3 Prujecl. and specmcaHy me Appncanrs wmldome reqmremenls m relahan (helelo L Thl|ndIlSfriI|CDuI1Irrldln tumsofllcls wllun If Ind Ia givl due cons: eration in (III III-Illrlll fink ihat althnugll some of Ike luncllons and tasks of mo 2" Rnpondonl as a Resident Eng car did not nap. (hi chlngu la (III worn and complullon data av me LRT3 Project means that lhu suid funnlons and tasks could be pmmm-a by me nmalnlng Rosldunl Englnnl and accordingly, il 5! nod disputed lhll fill lwo positions van m 9! 15 am naakxvvfin REw.EaFw «ma. am nmhnrwm s. U... w my s. mm-y am. dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! sum nnmuum TINGGI mum on KUALA LUIIPUR mum WILAVAH pznszxurum xunu LUMPUR, muvsm (auucuw KUASA-KUASA mus) rzmononm um K ssmuuu KEHM mu no wuszvmvmzu Dllam parka/a Award Mahkamah Fvrusahaan Na 334 Tahun 2:221 bvnankh 2242021 den auenma clan Pemnmn um 2912021 damn Kes Minksmih Pevusahaan Nu A/44455/19 Dan Dalam perkara mm plmmmvvan umuk Fgnntah Cenmran Dan oaxam Derkam Sekxynn 2o Akla Pemubullgin Pemsahaan 1967 Dan Dawn pemara menoenau Jaduav 1, ma Mammn Kahnbdnun «sea Dun Dzlam Derkava Aturan 53 Kaedarvkaedah Mahkimah zmz ANTARA Muss cumuusan and Femomn DAN 1 Mlhlumah Puusahaan Mllaylla 2. momma Nun am Naslr Mnhlmafl Reapumwkesponaen Heard mgslner mu /Duiengar bersama v... 1 .7: :5 sm naskxwan nzwmm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! (including the ielevanl functions and (salts) were combined and nervomied by a eingie Resident Engln a. The Industrial Courl emd whnn it t led to give due consideration to in. material fact that the 4. cllon pvocoaa IAIIII by (III Appllizanl wu fair and nporop blclun an the empioyees were engaged on fixed nemi contracts‘ trio nssessmenl was conducted by me ctii Resident Englnur and the e action w: I: d en the mu and iunctione aiiectod by the reduced scorn oitrie LRT3 Pmjacl. 43 in this respect. iririd that the 1“ Respondeniiaiied to appreciate |ha\ me piincipie oi ‘Last in, First om (LIFO) was oi iimiied utility in trie insient ease, as all Resident Engineeis iinciuaing the 2"“ Respondent) were engaged on simiiar fixed-term contracts 4:: Far inis isasnrie I VIEW inai it was appiopnete ior the Anphnanl to proceed. as it did, by assessing ine overall penonnanoe oi all Residenl Engineers engaged in me LRT3 Pioieci and pieaicaiing iie decision based on its assessment 45 in Sarawak siieii Bhd v. Ismail sanat 5 075 [m2] 1 MELR mi [2002] 2 [LR 371,015 ‘fIdU§‘VIEICOU|18CC€Dl8d a departure ham lhs UFO Drlnclple in a retrenchment exercise observing Inter aiia as IDIVOWS - -ine mun agiees wim ine Subfllissmn oi ieeinad couneei ioi me oompany on me non-vigbfifly oi the UFO pnncioie mie are amnln aulltorllins iiiiei dlcidl man an Implulyif may Ior sound and in main depart [mm sltlclly applying in. use pmicipie. Such a. nun: an inn vied on me bull oi in. .aiiity, cnmpnllbllllyi suinbilny and emciency oi Jnninl omc-is who am mu rd in pimi-once la mmr eeniei eivicm me lo in. metric lnhensts omi umployur.” (emphasis adaadi 46 Likewise, in Ahmld Marxukl hln Abdul Rank v. coicom Networks sun and [2013] MELRIJ zou me Indusinai Cnurl observed as ioiiows: - v... )1 in 2; IN iIasRxP75nuiREvv.EeiFw “Nana s.n.i inmhnrwm be ii... M may i... nrwiriaflly siiii. dnuumril VII aF\uNG Wm! 47 4a 49 50 5|. 52 ‘Ill me absence al dnuble standard or nesrrss, me calm r... In: ml: Ia plly In (M uunrrlem pres. mpleryud eyme company lempnasrs added) In mwleu Packard (M) Sdn aha v. Thangasamy arewn Grunlyulham noon] 1 MELR 1l2;[200D]1ILR198,|helrldusInal Court held as lellews. » ‘In reel oemeo uses shuw that ll ls me Implnyu who r. on ludgu ul me -rrrployu-s poflovmlnnu me me llllpluyul has no clvlalcn hm to accent Ihis jrmgrrrem rm ecnplnyel who nullnnnd mo uvnulnl mm onlvln mew mu M Ma mm mm. no-.~ lerhphasrs added) Based on the above. I find that the lndus1rlaI Court erred ln finding mat me Appllcanl was ohllgaled II.) rnlorm me 2- Respormeru abnm the ippralsal and the reason lheraof, and the (allure Ia du so rendered me appralsal male fldes The findlngs ol me lnduslnal courr are clearly rn mnfllcl wlzh eslaolrsneo lnduslrlal lurlsprudence, whroh has held |haI lhere ls no requlremehr lo na|lfy employees at me selecuon process or ID corroucl appralsals personally mm me employees Funlrer, me lnduslvlal Ccun ccmmllled e sennus error of can by determinlng lhal l| was lrlcumben| upon lhe Appllcanl (0 Lake sepemle sleps lo address me 2m Responderrrs perlormanoe, when your perlormenoe was never rhe basls luv me 2"“ Respondenrs ursmlssal The lnouslnal Court also lalled lo appreclale that the cmerla employed oy Ihe Applrcerrr, In wl|, assessmg lhe Resldenl Erlglneels‘ respective yeriorrnancasl and lelrmg mlo wnslderatlcn oomplelrrls vlssawrs me 2" Respenoenrs oerlorrrrenoe were a relevanl mener lor lhe Applleml lo lake lrllo cnnslderallon ln seleclmg which slalllo relrench lrom lhe LRT3 Prolecl, and «ms ls sepemle and dlsllhcl lrom a (ermlnauon for poor perlormanoe. Further, the lrlfluslnll Court had entirely lgrlored Ihe Anpllcanfs oomparelive organrselron charls, Whlch had reflected the mnsolldallon ol several posmons and me rumoval cl cerlaln fBSDOVVSlDl\Y|IESl whlch were taken over by MRCB~GK e... n n? 15 m uemrsru.azrv.ee.r»rr “None Smul luvlhnrwm .. med e may r... nflmnullly mm. mm. VI nFluNa Wm! 53 Added lo lnal, l find lhal the lnduslrial courl did nol address me clearly relevanl lac: (hall under me Aonlicanrs new organisation charts. lne ‘Quality Assurance no longer exisleo, moreolleli conlemporaneous mmmunlcalluns belweeri lne Aoolioam and MRCB-GK Idnher eanrirrned lnal lne ‘fiuallly ;e.eurenoe' Iunclmn would be MRCEGK responsibility. 54. Slml|arly,(helndusIniaICoul1 did nol address the fact mat the 0|’!!! Residenl Engineer roles were consolidated, for examplai whereas there had previously been lwo Resident Engineer (M&E) rolee rnese nad subsequsnlly neen Combined inlo a single posiliori. conclusion 55 Fremised on me reasons given above, l am oi lne View lnal lne lnddslnal courl s findings aswnlainad in me impugned Award were marred by rrialerial errors ofracl and law. 55 rrie leanied clieirmen oi lrie lndusmel Caurl nad occasioned a luridamenlal ermr wnen he construed me lerms oi me 2"“ Respondenls employment mnlract to mean man his employment could only oe lerrninaled pursl.lnrl| lo lne lnree express coridilions slaled (herein and for no other reason including redundancy 57 The lndnslrinl ceurn error was iimner compounded wnen ii lunlier concluded that me conlraclual lenris between the Applioanii MRCB- GK and Pi-asarana dlveclly alleoled the Aoplicarirs powerio dismiss ils employees. 55 The Industrial ooun occasioned ldruier senoos errors o1 fad and law wneri ll oendluded lnsl ine eosi reyiew exercise oy lne Malaysian Goyernrnenl nad nolyel been implernenled as in me lime o1 lrie 2” Rspondenrs dismissal, wnereoy I! lied lailed lo properly aooreeiaie the press release oy lne Minielry oi Finance dared ‘2n7»2m8i and riad iurlnerniore leiled lo lake lnlo considerelon lrie subslanllve efiects oi the changes announoed by the Malaysian eoirerrinieni lo the LRT3 Proiecl Fun 1: ml 15 rn iuaRxP75nuiREvvnEaFw “Nair Smll luvlhnrwlll r. in... e my in. nflnlnullly MIMI flnuavlml vn .rinne WVM 59 Funhen me Industrial ooun erred in M appreuauon and applvcamcn ml the selection cmsna adoplad by (he Appllcarn IVI smectlng me 2"“ Respondent for redundancy, whemnn me mauscnsl Cnurl had applied the reqmremenls for msnussal an the grounds 01 poor pednnnance‘ wmch are mapphrable and e\evanI to ma Ins|anl rams so Pvermsed on me aloresam reasons, I am 0! me view man me decnsxon onne mduscnal Cowl ws lainled wnh the error oflsw and/or mauanamy and/or unreasonatfleness wmch wanant me cunal mlsvvenhon av this Court. in. As such. \ allowed the Appllcanfs applicahnn lnr wdmizl rm/new m JR 268, JR 269. JR 270 and JR 271 C051 cl RM 1,500.00 wnn aHocaml to be paid Dy me 2* Respondent m JR 265, JR 259‘ JR 270 and JR 271 In the Aunncam Dated: ['5 January 21:24 Ahmad Kamal hm Md snama Judge High Conn Kua\a Lumpur v... u M 2; m mafixvvsnuufizwnzami «mm. smuw lunhnrwm .. U... n may he nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! counsels Far the Appflcanl. am 1 Thavalmgam (Enmk David Tan Sang Keat wnh mm) Teluan T. Thavalmgam ea. Co Peguambela flan Peguamcara sums K-341‘ ms 3‘ B\oK K. Na 2, Jalan suuans. semis Mon| Knara‘ 50480 Kua\a Lumnur. Fm me 2" Respondent: Enclk Mohammad Am bm Shanpufldnn Teluan Razi1.Abdu\A1Iz 5 Partners Peguambela den Feguamcara 33-3 .3. am am Fkmn Bmck 3‘ Megan Avenue 1, No, :99, Jalan Tun Razak. some Kuala Lumpur (Ru; Tuan- 43951/19/RAAP/MASlU—hak|mj ..ms.us m iasfixvvsnuufizvvuznfiw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max mum MAHKAMAN nusm DMLAVA nu KUALA LUIIPUR mum wnuvm wsnssxumm KLIALA LUIGPUR. muvau (amuzunu KuAsu<uAsA sous) Pzrwonomm umux ssmuuu KEHAKIMAN MD M gs.2mm2u21 mm parkara Award Mankamah Plrusahaan Na s32 ram 202: benankh 2242021 am mtsvlma men Femohon pads 194202! awn Kai Mahkzmah Ferusahaan Na A/A4486/19‘ nan Dalam pemara sualu ne/mahanan unluk Permian Calxamru Dan Damn perkara Seksyen 2:: Am Pemubungan Fem:-Ihiun I951‘ Dan Dalam nelkara manuenau Jeans‘ 1‘ Am Mahkamah Kehakvman 1964. Dan Dawn parkara Aluran 53 Ksedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA Muss Cansulxsdn ans Pemohnn am 4. Mahkamah Pcmnhun why... 2 mum: B-hurl um Ibrlhlm Rnspundaniespnnflnn me-ms sm naskxvvsn nzwmm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Judgment Inlmduclion t The Applicant nad med judicial review applillltan Na WA—252B8r G7/2021 (JR 283). ND.: WA-25»269»D7/2021 (JR 28D), Nu . WA-25- 270-07/2021 (.|R27o) and No WA—25-271-07/2021 (JR 211) under order 5: oi tne Rutes at court zotz (RDC) ior amongst otners. an Order 07 Certtorart to quash the Induslnnt Court Awards N0 835 of 2021, No 531 012021, No: 834 1752021 and ND 832 of 2021 da|ed 22.4 2021 respec' Vy 2 Aitnoudrt lhese annitceimns emanate irorn separate Awards at ttte industrial court, they an relate to wnat are essentially tdenttcat lens. tndaad, att iour cases were heard lagelhevin tne proceedings oeiore tne tndtrstrtei Conn, and me oontents oi tne Awards trtentsetves are suostanttvety rdenttoat 3 In the above Award, tne First Respondent (lndunrlal court) new that the Second Respondent tn JR 268, JR 259, JR 270 and JR 271 nad been dtsmtssed by the Apotrcantwttttout tust cause and excuse 4 JR 26% JR 270 and JR 271 are fixed to be heard together with this JR 268. 5. Alter the hearing I allowed me Applicants appttoations tn JR 268, JR 259. JR 270 and JR 271 i win now set out the grounds at my judgment Background Fact! 6, Tne Iecte Ieadtng to ma mtng 01.“? 268. JR 269, JR 270 and JR 271 are atrrtost tdenttcat and are adopted wttn andlar without modificauon from the parties’ written submissions and can be summarized as Ioltws: - 61 Tne Applicant ts a firm ot oonsuntng engineers and was appolnlsd by Prasarana Malaysia aarnad (Puuronn) to went on me Light Rail Transit Line 3 (western corrtdort Page 5 ms rn iaaRxP75nurREvv.EatFw “None s.n.t luvthnrwm .. .r..a a may t... nflmnnttly mtmn dnuavtml VI nFtuNfl vtmxt l=rolecl (the um Prolm). A| lns malanal lama, MRCE- George Kent Sdn Ehd (IIRCB-GK or (he l.hen—PDFj was appolnled as me ‘Prolecl Dellvery Partner rasporlslble lorlhe management and supervlslarl of the LRT 3 Pmled’, albell the uluma|e owner ol Ihe LRT3 Fralecl was and ls the Malayslan Gnvernmenl, whlch malrllalned final aulhonxy over the same a.2 The 2"‘ Rsspondanl was specifically employed lo work on me slle cl lns LRT3 Prolool as a Resrdenl Englnaev. Llghl Hall Transll 3 —Wes1em corndor, lor a cwoyeav rlxed penod lrorn 3.7 zmv unlll 30 6.2019, wrm a oasrc salary ol RM le.oou.oo par rnonln 5.3. Follawlng me 14*" Geneml Electlons on 9.5.2015. me then- naw Malayslsn Gavemmarn lmplemanlad a revlew or all Isrgs» scale prolecls. mcluding the LRT3 Prolscl 5 4 MRCB-GK nsd rnslmaad |he Aoolrcanl [as well as all omar sub-conlractors lnvolved In me LRT3 Pmlecl) lo nold all reviews and approvals lor snoo drawrngs and submsslons and no stop overlime and sum umy one work as Thereafler. mere was an announcement lay me Mlnlstry ol Flnanee on 12.7.2013 lnax, wnrle lne LRT3 l=ro,ec1 would canllnue, there would be slgnlficanl changes made. lnoludlng rnleralla me Iollawlng 7 (a) the llmelme lor wmplellon of ms LRT3 Pmjecl was revlsed fram 2n2lJ to 2024. (bl more would be a naduclron In one overall oonslruollon size and design oi lne LRT [ram depot and LRT svalions due lo me change lvom 42 sets or scar lrarns lo 22 sels ora- canralns. and lol me oonslruchon omve slallons would be shelved and me 2km underground tunnel and underground stauan at Persraran Hisnammuddrn, snarl Alarn would be canoellad v... ; ans m sssn.mnu.nzw.za.rnr “None Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. o... w my r... nflmnullly mum: dnuavlml w. .nuna Wm! 5 6 The above cnanges eflecfively enrauea slgmficanl changes to and an overau reduclxm m scape, whereby me LRT3 Prorecn was changed mm a Prqecx Dclwary Farmer model ha a fixed pnce (Le. turnkey or ‘Design and Bum‘) contram 6 7 The various contractors mvmvad m the LRT3 PNJBCI ware Informed of the cos| re-new exercwse mvowing the Mvuslry er Finance we letters dated 2 7 2619 and 9.7.2018‘ whereby more aspects 0! me LRT3 Pmrect warn DIAI on hold or ummad enurely. venous rneenngs were also hem mn MRCE~GK w drscuss the ws| 0plimIsE|IDrI exemse, mcludmg mler aha Ihe ormssmn with: 51x Smllons. a.e. Around October zms, me anecme was given by MRCB»GK to oo\|o<;live\y mslmclure (ha LRT3 Frayed orgarusafion Chan and sue supemsron staff to supper! the new “Design and Build’ rnouer. ms meant me Apphcanfs organrsauon, wgexher vntn me other uexaneu Des-gn cone-man: mu noes) were expecied |o work with MRCBGK mm rewer s\af1 m/era“. s 9 Based on an 01 the above. the Avphcant ennuumed a revrew ohls szamng needs and reorganized the teams‘ where among other «rungs, me Me MAE‘ neanu were merged, and me ouamy Assurance‘ mncuon was transferred rmrn me Apphcam |u MRCBGK 61D.Funher and In add on to |he above, mere had been sugnincanx aerays In payment rrorn Mxcaeokr when were suosxannal rn namre and had eenousry slrarnad me Applicant‘: resources These delays nau amounted to saveml rnunens over a srgnmcann Ienglh or lime, and had prompled the Apphcant |o rngnngm to MRCE~GK |he extreme ermeumes m paying sva« assrgnea lo the LRT3 Project on mu Iple oocasmns. and were even repcrled m me news 611. The Apphcanl had cm of necessny Immemerlled a salary dalerment scnerne (or aw staff eammg above RM 5,000 on a month‘ sramng m as reuer dated 2132013 |e an sum as lallaws - ‘Ruennoe Vs made to mnlnwn nan melting on me 22 June mm and 21 Auwusx zara ;..nam rn iasRxP75nu:REvv.EaFw “Nana a.n.r lunhnrwm s. H... a my r... annnn-y am. dnuamnl VI mum war As dlscuued and agreed we nereoy wrifivm mat as a result oi curlan|markelm:idl\luri1 and ine deraun in Acmdulad Dlymlritl by our nrerer wants tria manaoenienr has In aitarna we out to lmplsmanla salary aelelmem exarsiseidrstart earning more tnan am: am a nrenin ‘ 512 Flowing lrnrn all oi trie above‘ lfl order to restructure its operations lollowino the cost-reduction directives of tne Malaysian Government and to meet the revtsed sodpe ol tne LRT3 vroiecti trie Applicant was necessarily required to reoonsldertts manpower requirements 613 Prernired on me loregolng, tne Applicants crriel Reside-it Engineer had assessed tne uanous employees under nie purview. and tne venous teams were restnrolured oased on lrie eliangas to the LRY3 Project 514 As a result, Slgnlficam changes were made‘ Including me merging of oorri Mes rearns into one and me lransfer of Quality Aesuranoe respdnsitaillties lronr the Applicant (under the PDP niodel) Io MRCB-GK [under me Design and Euild‘ rnedelt consequently, ten no) employees were lotmd to be redundant including 01:2" Respondent is 15 Not long after inst, lrie Apptroant had by way or a letter daled 29 3.2015 proceeded to lerrninete the 2“ Respondent lrorn his employment eilectrve on 3l.iu zoia, due to the primary reason trier the MRCE—GK lclient) has rnstmeled tne Aoolieantto partially rrold oertein ponions oirtie Projacl as part or tne Protect‘: cos! optirnizatron Semis: by the Malaysian soveninienr. 5 ls Dissatisfied with the termination, the 2"“ Respondent. togstrier witrt three other aflecled employees, trad lhereafler med a represerilalton o1 unlawful dismissal at me Industrial Rslalinns Department under seuion 20 or the Industrial Relations Act 1967, wnlon was trtereaiter relerred to me Industrial court by tne Honourable Minister M Human Resources lor adiudication. 6.17 Ferlmanllyi me 2"‘ Respondent‘: pleaded case was trier there was no genuine redundancy undenying trie decision to terminate ms services‘ whereby his positions and lunctions mucus ru rean.»rsnu.nsrir.ser»u “None s.ii.i luvlhnrwm is. u... a may i... aiirin.ii-r MIMI flnuavlml VI .riuno Wm! were stm tn extslenue Moreover, he asserted that me Apptrcant was not undergoing any nnanctat dtmountes wntcn requrred that ne he retrencned 5 Is. wrtn the agreement of all paruest all tour cases were neerd |oge|hev were tne tndustnat oeurt. 5.19. The tndustnal Conn subsequently proceeded to hand down tne tmpugned Award deted 22.4 2021 tmtdtrrg |hat Inc 2"” Respondent had been dtsmlssed wilhoul just cause or excuse and ordered tne Apphcanl |o paytne 2"‘ Respondenta hate: 0! RM moon on in back wages 5.20. The Appllcam. being dtssatisfied wttn tne tmpugned Award, Ihevsafler Nari the Instant appfinaltcn for judicial review, seekmg the wrtal inlervanhun Oflhls Honourable COLIN The grounds for just ‘II rvvlnw 7. Based on tne 5la|emenL tne Apphcanl seeks to cneuenqe the rndustriat court dectston based on the following grounds: - ‘M The! ma lnduslnal Conn had erred In {an and law when it rnrsapptted tne Iegat pnnctples germane lo redundancy and relmnchmam; specmcauyt when it erroneousty aonuuded tnat tne 2"'= Respondent‘: employment contract eeutd only be valtdly Iermmaled fulluwing tne edrnptetrun or tennmatran at the LRT3 Fmjacl‘ 7 2 ThalII1e|ndus(rIa|COIm nad erved In tact and taw when rt had cnnduded tnat a redundancy slluahon could nnly ans: upon the cancallslton or r we 0! the LRT3 Project: 7 3 That the tndustnat Conn had erred In tact and law and had taken rntn cansrderatuon trrelevent matters wnen tl had oancluded mat tne Anphcanl was requved to obtain the permrssron ul Presarana end/or MRCEVGK to temnnate the servtce oi the 2“ Rasvnndent »..u.,ru rn mafixvrsnurfizwuzami “Nate s.n.t luvthnrwm r. u... e my r... nrwtnuflly MIMI dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 7.4 The indusuriai court erred in Ierms or facts wnen n icund inai me ccsi review camed oul by me Maiaysran Government nad ndi yet been made an ine dale oi lerrmnahon 01 me 2"“ Respondents SBNIDG, whereby the indusinei cdun iaiied lo |ake mlo aoeouni me conienis oi ine Ministry 0! Finances press release daied 127 2015 announcing the various measures to reduce me casl and scope otme LRT3 Proieci: The lndusilial coun erred in fact when il iaiied to give due oonsiderallnri mine rnaienai and undispuied vests, speafically me measures to reduce me cost and scope oi the LRT3 Pmied announced by the Ministry on Finance, which had resuiied In a vedualon in me Applicanfs pereonnei requirernenis: 76 Tne indusirial Courl erred in terms oflacts when ii med (0 give due aonsideralion Io Ihe malenal fact mat aiincugn some cnne hmclmns and Iasks mine 2" Respondenl as a Residwil Engirieerdld nut sippi ine change mine scope and oornpienen daia at me LRT3 Prciecl means that me said runcnons and (asks oouid be periormed by me ramaimng Residerfl Engrneer and accordingiy, ii is rim disputed that one Iwo posiucns (including me velevaril iuncncns and vasksi were combined and perionned by a eingie Residanl Engineer, and 7.7. The irrdusinai Ocurl erred wnen ii railed to give due cansidaralmn lo the maienai iaci inai ma selection process used bylhe Applicant was lairand appropnaie because an me employees were engaged on fixed ienn oonuacis. ine assessrneni was oamiucted by me cniei Resrdeni Engineer and the seiecimn was based on me areas and iunciidns aiiecied by me reduced scape oi me LRT3 Prqecl Tho uw 8 Judiaai Revrew is eneraily concerned with the decision making process where me mpugned decision is flawed on me ground oi prooedurai impropriely. me In al is ru aean.»renu.nerv.ee.r»d «nu. s.n.i luvihnrwm a. met! a my r... unmnniily MIMI dnuaviml VI .nune Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-269-07/2021

PEMOHON MMSB CONSULT SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) LEE KHURN YING

Judicial Review - The Applicant filed applications for an order of Certiorari to quash the decisions of the Industrial Court dated 22.4.2021 pursuant to a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the 2nd Respondents whereby the Industrial Court had found the 2nd Respondents had been dismissed without just cause or excuse - Whether there was genuine redundancy.

15/01/2024

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5b1d5b18-650d-4bd8-80ab-2d5fc7100da0&Inline=true

15/01/2024 15:47:04 WA-25-269-07/2021 Kand. 33 S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GFsdWw1l2EuAqy1fxxANoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25—2s9—o7/2021 Kand. 33 15/01/2n2L 1s:A7-n4 DALAM rmmmm muss: MALAVA nu mun LDIIPUR mum wnuuu rasnssxuwm xum umpun. muvsu Aanuucma KuAsA.xuAsA mus» wzmonomm uug K gsmuom K‘ENAlGMfl no wA‘z5-255477/2021 Dnlim pevkarz Award Mnhkamah Perusahaan No ass raw. 2921 bonankh 2242o21 Gan dflenma olen Pemomn pm: 2s42D21 dalam Kai Mahkamah PerusahaanNa A/4—us3/£5‘ Dan Dalam pemara sualu uavmnmrun umuk Penman Csmorin‘ Dan wan. nevkam Seksyan zu ma Pemubcmgan Puusahaan I967. Dan Dalam ualkala menoenav Jeans! 1 Am Mihkamah Kehildmnn um. Dan Da\am perkara Amvan 53 xaaaanxaeazn Muhkamah zmz ANYARA mass co-uunsnn am Pmwhon mm 1 M-mm-n mum. In Mallysla 2 Viv cum. wan Responuemfiasocnaen Heard logelharwnh / rmengar hersnml Due : .« :5 sm smwmummmmaa «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! mum runxnmm mom MALAVA on nun; LLIMPUR mum wuunu pznszxuvum xugu umvuw. uuuwsu rsarucuu KUASA-KLIASA xrusr PERMOHOMAN unrux ssmxnu KEI1AKlM5y ug WA~25~lEI—(I7/1021 Dnlam perkam Award Mankamah Puusahean No as: Yahun 2021 xmunn. 2242021 can mlenma oxen Pemahcn mu. 294202: dahm Kas Mnhkamnh Pelusahaan No A/44484/19 Dan uawam penars susm pemmmnin umuk Penman Cemoran‘ Dan Dalam Devkzm Seksyen 2a ma Pemummgnn Puruuhaan I961‘ Dan Dawn nencava mennenax Jaduzl v. Akla Mahkamah Kahakrmnn 1994. Dun Dalam perkala Alumn 53 Kaeaamcaeaan Mankzmnh 2m: ANTARA Muss Conlull San am: Pemomn om 1 u-mum.» Ptmsahnn Mmym 2. Ln Khurn vmg Resvnnden-Resmnden mm Iogalmr Mm / Dwdengav naruma mu Mxs sm smw.mzm.nmN.,. «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 9 However‘ the law has now developed to allow a dacrslon lo be challenged on gvourlds O9 Illegallly and lrratlonalllyl which then permus ma Coulis Io scru|inIzs me daclsrorl no| only lurlhe process but also for substance 10 ll rs sellled law lrlal lhe mgr: courl mu rml rrrlerlara wllh a denislon af me lnduslrial cuurl unless ll can be eslaulrsned lrral lrre declsion ls lnlecled wlm errors ol law. 11 The mearung afermv or law has also been explalned bylhe oourl ol Appeal m we case or syarlkal Kondman ulelayu Kelaman and v. 1 nlpnfl wcnlm Unlon mus) l MLRA zec; mes] 2 cu 743; [1995] 2 MR 1601; [1995] 2 MLJ 311 ln lhe lollowrrrg words. “It ls nellherlus nor dull hle In name: In Ixhnulhvl dufinluun 0! mm Imnunll no In trier M I... rm me calagurles on such an error are no! uased. But [I may In 3 u am In urrnv av law would bd diwloud il ma declslon-ullklr uks hlmsell me umng qnnsliun urum lnlo account mlmm cnnlldlrluons nr orun. Ia uh nlo Ixnurll ulovnnk clmslflevallons [whal may be wnvemenlly lermed an Anlsmmn: errerldr ifhl mllcnrllllull In mm of y um ul-mu. ar ruluppll. or mlssulu a pvlncvnle ulme an ml l.Iw ~ lemphasls added) 12 surularly, ln me case ofAlrsp:-:1 Manug-mom sarvlcu Sdn Bhd v. Col (3) Human: Sinuh cluugur slngll man] 1 MLRA cu; [zoos] 4 CL! 17, me Conn 01 Appeal held lhal an erroneous lrllerenee an «acne ls also an error at law wmch would warram an arderafceninvari - "On me alive! hand. we mean. M course. mu :1 u armr-ly usmpolanl lar ma wan Own WI cenmarl pvoceedlnas la dlsagvaa Wllhlhs lrrduslnal Calm on me corlcrusllms or lruereuass avawn by Ihe lane! lmm me pruvea ar aammaa evldence an lru wound lira! no reasenaula lnlmrul xlmllany clrcumslanued would have aimed ax such a wncllslon or drawn such an lmerence An urnmoul lumm. hum puma urldmilhd llcu ll 71 armor um um In um Mlacv." (emphasls added) 13 ll ls lrua |ha| the ngm la reorgamsa ls a marlagenal prervgallve as firmly eslabllshed ln lmlliam Junk: 5 co (M) Bhd u. s. aalasingam {mo} 1 MELR 312; [1996] 2 MLRA an; [1997] 3 Due 11 of 15 sru GFsdwwllzEuIu:y1vuANaA “Nair s.r.r nuvlhnrwm .. UIQG u may r... urwlrullly -mm: glam. Vfl muua war AMR 2565: [I997] 3 CL! 235 wherein me Coun of Appeal had also defined ‘rarenchmenl as follows. — 191 - Reuenchmem means “the ensename afsumlus Inbuuruv staff by In nmnlru/Iv Yer nny mason whalloavsr mnemse than as a pumshmem mlhcled by way aldlscvphnary a¢lKm'[ 1 [ma] Whether Irv: retmnchmam exerdse m a pamcum and u Dona me or almrvnu‘ m a quesuon M lacl ma ufdsgrnt dlpendmq Iur Ils resomlvon upon me Deeulwr has and arcumslances av each case n u will- nlllnd mu m Impluynrl cmlllcd In mum ms mu. In an manner he can u bus 59 lung: as man manag pm" a mmuua born - mu daelnlon LI lmmum mun ulminnllon mn by Ina Induslrlal Cmm Nawaver me mdusinzl Cowl e empowered. and mdeen aumaoum, la wwesugalz me has and wwmstances m a Dimcular new to delevmme wvvalhar um uumsu m power was In 13:1 Dona me ‘ (emphass adaed) 14 In cnowon Mn ylll Lxmmd v. um chm Hoek 5 Anal [2911] MLRHU 1:30 min CLJII 2321. me Hugh Cmm likewise scaled me nnnounte as vouaws. ~ 1171 'ln dlsrmssvvg me an Respcmdsnls oumermon and auowmg me Appucanls appueazm m. Cmm mm mm ca...m...a um Aupnnunm Dcullmn and Inmnnl «am .. ... umwlunv mm‘ as ml agumum plemgallvt 49 dead: IM puneues, snmegles mm ruqulrumnnl won - nmmunng or uovuunizlllon mm -- ma] Al an empwoyer, m. Appllclnlhrtl Inn «mm: mm: and volume of as Vnbnur me. ennsnsmn mm «In om.n.mm.~s olakzllvu ma flmcllun. mm novylnlullon we. mm conuquem In ncmmmlc and mm mnnngamunl o4 cm bum-es. an: no sowlne al smm of its umplnyees were mm to o. ndunflanl or nxculrv um . mu aemon w. axccuhd In me um. um scum usln nnnnunlsllo vlcl mlsalhmnfns employns, a ployu wu mun Incordlngly mama to uiummc mu n-mun axons (emphasis added) 15 The above decxswon was amrmea by we own at Appeal vme cwu Apnea! Na W-0I(A)»38—D1/2017 u... 1: .7: :5 sm emwmummmN.,. «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! The dlcisloll onus com a. That me lndusl I Court had erred in last and new when ll mlauppllad lne lugal prlnplples gonnnno lo ndundlncy and rezr-nenrnen . Ipoolflcullyr when it lrwnncllily epnelndnd (hit me 2"‘ Respnn cult‘: employment contract could only In valldly lerlrllrlalod lollowlng me oorllpl ' n ar lerrninaxlen ol lns LRT3 Prolscl. b. Thenhe Industrial Court had -rred ln um and law when l had concluded lnnl - voliundnncy um n cauld only nrlse upon the callullalloll or lallure of the LRT3 Pruisrrl; as, Havlrlg perused me lndnslnal cdurrs Award. I am of lhe vlew lhal lne lnduslrlal Conn erred ln [ad and law when ll wncluded lnel a redundancy sllualiun could Mlly arlse .n «he clrcurvlslarlces exphcllly slaled V1 clause 14 do me 2"= Respondenrs empldymenl cdnlram 17 we can be gleaned lrom lne Award of me learned cnemnan when he slaled as lpllows - 1291 rp pul nelenny I! lheappolrllmerllsolall lhe clennnnls W51! an 3 fixed lenn contract at O31Vlp|€}yVYV5/V|.F|llS|llIIIl\‘) clause 14 of me Claimants‘ uppulnunenl leners, me Cnmnllly :In only unnlnsu Iilnlr urvlcu ldr lne followlnll nawns av qruulvdl m uppn ln. cumplnllorl M on assifillmnrll lulvltly lhl Pro:-cl or on Where the cllenl lnslructs . ch np. of lurwrl dun to Illcnlrlpwullcu nr noll pmenn-nee an pull of on Clnlmnmx ur mu mm mm: dull nel cnmnluhv ll: count pr l- unnlnsud by me cllenl ahead afschedu w enmr 5 s m. [291 By ineerpominp an virlulls grounds or reasons (or which me clurn-me can In lennlnmd «nun Ihnlromploynlulli. nu Company rnex-s ll nblllldnntlyclullhal on Company wlll not tcmllvulo mo cl mam: lune : coodmuns Ind lbuvl hid nulmatlnlli-d ur cryuulllud um! um corllinnnlu kl pm-n. n IlIlp|9ylIllrl| nnlu ln. expi 011?: r d tnml colllracl or me 1-mllrnenr nllhe colldinoll -xpv Ind In cl...“ 14 man. »...ueus em emwmuenneymme. «we. Smnl ...n.mn n. LAIQ4 m my n. ewnmun em. m.n.n n. nFluNG vtmxl xaq In lhn Ivunl me Pmjefl ma en 1119 camp!!!» as cnnrse or me unnnnmn by an cmnunuu of eeneame men nu Colnpnny could nonihly Iuccud in ll: cormnlion mm vitw 91 um Ialluu ea In: Propel In complu: [Is mm or Ina! n was xennunaxee by on Cllunt an a of Ichndnl . glnulllu ridulldincy Illuuion nee Instr: glvmg eawn rm me Company In vvuvgamse or venmmure us argamsnnon wmch may my load m renenunnenz er me cnnnenu u there was sulvlusufi libaw [:51 Tm Company was charmnu mlanlnun vman fllaamglha Iermmamn an an we malmanh met me reason my such (srvmnahun was an account L71 clause ueune npnumlmam Valle! al all me c mnnlsyemn wldunu bdon ma. Calm quit: many uannm in fify me Iuvminilvovl enn- CI-lmanu pm-an: m clnuu u In none ohm confllllnn ma down In mu» 1: van magma junnynne (M kmnlnntlon of .u an Elaimlnls. me ounducl M the Company In Iannlnalmg me cnennanrs pursulm In damn M0! the appomlmanl mum wn ch-lly m mean 0! me mannanus mnlran no e-npneymenn wvlh me Company mat ensures :eeun|y ac nun let me dumhon no men me (am: eennaexs nl ampvuymem ' (emphasis added] 15 Based on me above finding. me Veamed cnainnen had apphed a resmcluve |nlerpve|a|>on cllha (ervmnalion clause eune Empbyrnenl Conlract smoe |he Veamed chamnen nad made a findmy (hit me provision at (Mans: 14 of me Emplaymenl cunuacx had to be sausfiad nevme me 2"-1 Reepenaenrs amplnymenl could be tervrwlated for any reason, Incmdlng redundancy. 19 However, .n eennng In hvs lindmg. lhe Iearnee Chairman nea vauee to oonsxder me express residual ngm lo Cermmale me agreement repcsed no mm pemes as envisaged m Clause 14 as mews. — --14 Tunnlnitlml Yemlmnlmn n anon wmplelron of ma lnlgnmem av when the menu wnslmcls a change at nelson due to mmmpexence or mn-performance an yourwewotflme Fmmxdoau nmeempme ns eeumer xslemu \ a by me wen! areas of sc)1edu\a wmchever vs earhet Eixhu puny mnlmllnx an. ngm In umnin n ma lppnlnlnllnl hyulvlny not me min lwo mnlllhs nofict in writing me u .: :5 sm GFmwmIzEuAuymxANeA «wn. smuw ...n.mn s. U... n vsfly n. nrW\n|H|Y mum: mmn VI mum v-max 20. 21. 22 23. 24. Gmmty mu nu| be pm In ynu n yuu apl In Iovlmnale yam services wan ms Compmy pm. In Ilwmmaflun or Inn P-clad ma aumeu In ma Drum: hzndma my man documsms. elc' Kernnlwasws added) Based on the abave CIauss14,|I|s clear IJ1a\ the express condmans var termmahon macs to me auwmane mmmauen Mme eonuscl in urcumsv.-mes outsme me fixed term duration Mme contract, and nolhvng precruasa me Appucanl rmm (ermmanng the 2'“ Respundenfs empbymcnl {or any ulnar vahd reasons such as mxsmndun, poor penmmanoe or, as m me msvam case‘ redundancy Therelore‘ I vvew mat by hohmg that the 2"‘ Raspondenfs Iermmalvnn could only vanmy came about by sausiymg me spacmc eenamons lislsd in Chusa 14 of ms empluymanl conlrach the Indusmal cam had oecasxaned a clear ermv or Vaw by (army to apply me appmpnaxe principles cl law which arise in mnneclxon war: a claim at redundancy. Further‘ I am 07 the view that the lnduslnal Court, by ounflnlng Its vwew lo ms cundlhuns set out w Claus: 14 of (he amp\nymen| contract, lawled Io app\y the correct law or to ask usew me Iundamenlm queslxon as In whether a redundancy swluahon had‘ In ‘aw and VI Vad, ansen based on the cimumsvanees of |hB case. Upon perusal al me evidence produced beiove the uxausuial court, 1 find thal lhe Malaysvan Govemman| had dlrecfly suspended and placed me um Propel under review, mandaung than an stakeholders H1 Ihe LRT3 Frcqecl immemen! stringent oos| oplimwsllmn. The Malayswan Govammenls review culminated in a reslrucmnng of (he enlwe LRT3 Fmgech wmch mcmded sigmflcam changes such as an extended umehne for eompnemn from me to 2024 and a raduchcn In various deliverahles In Arkflek Akiprima Sdn Bhd v. Lllng slew Fate 5 Anor [2001] 1 MELR As: [2002] 1 ILR «so, me IndusInalCom1 considered that me enema! mnuenoe oflhe govemmenl uomd consmule a basis for retrenchmenl when n held Inler aha as iouows — ‘ wnsmsrme grounds «mme rE|renchmen| gwan by emmuyev are we met V5, vmemermeve had m lac: names a mum" m me uusmess ol the comparwdun m cwcumslances such as scamny uv raw rnituual an up :5 av :5 sm GFmwmIzEuAuymxANnA “Nun: sum lunhnrwm .. med u my u. mum-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! lne avzrlabllny 0! WNCI1 lne running suns lazlury depends ulsuwpaan :1 warn nndar ma mar. M ma wovnmmt 4, or thing In nnoln whlcrl made n lrnaossllan to commul ma huslmsl Ixnblal a less or on rrraagra pmllu ' (emphasls added) 25 Premlsed on me almye and revlewmq lne evldence lnal has been adduced. l am dune Vlew me learned Chalrrnan lalled la adnslder mal me Appllcanrs decision |o reonganlse lls buslness operalmna was a Dona fide exemlse ln response to external loroes whlch could not be deprecaled or Ignored The Malayslan sdyernrnenl nad dlracuy suspended and revlewed me LRT3 Pmjech culmlnahng ln srgnmcanl changes m we same. specifically an exlendad llmellns lar oomplellon and reduulons Io varlaus delweranles 25 The lnduslnal Courl lalled Ia adequalely cansrder lne apprdprlale legal |esl as lo wnsmer a genulne redundancy sllualmn has ansen, and had hereby rrnsdlrecled lzsall 17! law and racl Thal ma lndusmal coun nan arrad ln fact and law and had lakan lnlo conaldar n inalavam rnauars whorl It had concluded that ma Appncam was required to omain me pannlsslan nl Praaarnna andlor MRCE-GK lo I-rmlnmn ma urvico (1! ma 2'" Raapondam. 27 on «ma lssue. naylng perused me learned cnaxrmans Award, he nas come to me lallawing llndlngs: - 1:3) ay making Ihls slalemerll me Campirly nannally cnrluadlx that n .5 human by me canflmons lald dawn VI me appomlmenl letter dared me as me and ma lmnnlry cl Flrlanoa maul: release Now: r nowhere lnuna slrucllovlfrlml the Cllenllurlhe casl Opvflmlsal n are». ay ma ulalayalnr. Guvlmmlnl van that any lnnmeum var lne company In Iumlinalu any of ma kly aaraannal. "ll Cumplny was also mx able to show «nus cenn any such Ilulruchnnl mun cm clsarn orEmployIr|h.I| purm n had bun ob ad for ma bumllullon of any :0 [Is employee. rn runs century tn ma my wndlllon lmpo d ay lhl Emmy-r aa mi ln me lelmera aaauinun-nxdaud ns.nI.znIs. n ms absence nl any lnauucuon (ram ma Ellinl or Emplnylr u anylaagad ln ma mm olaapolnnnnrn damd nuuzola on ma snannaa to um um al kty pllsonml wnhoul any war wflllen approval will run comrny me 16 9! x5 srn GFsdwwlIzEuIu:yWaxANnA «nu. s.nn nuvlhnrwm a. med m my r... nflmnaflly sum. dnuuvlanl y. .nuna Wm! 1:: nu: mm M lppnlnlmnnl «mm aa.na.2o1e ind clnuse u aflhe uppolnlmnnl mm at on cuvnnnu - (emphasis added) 23 Based an one above Award of me learned Cnawnan. «ms cmm vnews Ina! me lnduslnal Court had made an error when wt had consumed \ha| based an the terms or me Vsuer 01 appmmmem as helween me Apphcam, Prassrana and MRCEVGK. clear mslruclinns andluv permlssxon had Ia be gwen la the Apphcanl nevuve m wmd vahdw dwsrmss me 2"“ Respondent 29. 1 am e! me mew that the wearned Chairman‘: nnamgs on «ms Issue are pervevse and enuneaus m law and m (am because: - 29.1 Any alleged ncn—ccmphanr:e mm the provlsxons 01 me agreement between me Apphclnl, Prasarana, and MRCBVGK has no beanng whatsoever on me que as m wneme: a buna flde redundancy suuauon nas ansen 29 2 There 15 newher any emphzymem nor any con|rac\ua\ rexamnsnrp baxween me 2M Rapondem and Prasarana and/or MRCB-GK, and lherelore the absence (:1 any appmva\ or pervrussnen fmm Chase emilles does not vinale the vahdwly Many veksnchment by the Appficanl. so runner, nms ceun \s of me new that even :1 (here Is any such non- compliance‘ vf Itexwsled, m wumd be a canlracluen mspme between me Applncam. Fuasayana and/ov NRCB-GK, and mus, me Induslnm caun had mlsdileaed nsew wn law by hmdvng that me terms of me agreement be\ween the Appncam, Frasarana, and MRCB—GK were delerrmnahve anne empmyrnenk relanonsmp belween me Apphcanl and me 2"“ Responuem. 11. Th! Indllllrial Court and In Iolml oi II (I whln I! found that the :05! review carriad out by (hi Manayuan Government had nofi yal hlln mad: on III! dill of Illmlnatlon 01 (III 2"‘ RIl|'JDrIdll1l’I nrvlcm wh Iby (Ila Indul Cour! d In take into nccnunt lhc comonls of me Inlslry of Finam:|'s puss nluu filled 12.7.2|‘lII announcing lhl VflY|D|l5 mnlurn I0 rlducl In! con! Ind mom of tho LRT3 FFOJOG1. v... 17 M 25 m GFsnww1IzEuIu:y1vuANeA wn. snn ...n.mn n. U... a may n. nflmnnflly -mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa v-max e. we lnduslnal Court enred n fact wilulu n lallad Io nlvn due consldlrallolu to tho ml nl Ind vndlspuled laols, sooellloally nu mum" to nude. nu ml and wow onn. um wmlecl announced by the Mlnlsny of Flnnnco had ruullld m a Vlflnctloll In lhl App||=-Int‘: personllol rcqlllrvlvlonll. 3|. Hlnd (hat the lnduslrlal Court had mlsdlrecled use}! when concluded lha| the cosl VGVISW axerclse had not laken place at lhe llme the 2"’ Respondent‘: servloe was lermlnated and lalled Ia corlslder lne measures annevnoed by me Malays.-an eevernmenl aocordlng lo lhe out review exemlse 32. I find the finding of the learned Challman on (his lssue Is agalllsl and/or contrary to he Malaysian GmIarnn1erIl's awn pless release daled 12 7 ma‘ vvrnen makes expressly clear we ouleome or us oosl opllmlsalicrl exerclse ln lms respect. me Mlrllslry ol Flnanoe had stand lnler Illa as [allows lrl the sand prass lvlenss. - me nnal lolal cosl M me man Fn»ec1 IS reduced by 47% llum RMCH es ollon ro amass bllllorl vavng Malaysans a lolal el RM15 oz olllon vnlseasx wlll lnclmt pmilcxcosls lncludmg bul not lvnnad no Walk Fackagl Comlacls lWPEsy land Bmulsllmn. pmpcl mznagemem conaulunoy fun‘ opemlnorlzl and overnead eosls. as well as lnlalesl durlng mnsllumlun r (emphasls added) (See Enclosurn 3 ol plan 2:1 _ 261) 33. The Minlslry lurlner nlgnllgnls eaveral key respecls ln wnlen lne costs ler lhe LRT3 Pmled had been ophmlsed, lncludmg reduorng me seooe ellne pmlecl, exlendlng lne eumplellan Ilmehne by four addrlronal yeera and convemng lne plulecl lrom a PDF model no a fixed onoe model :4. This IS luflher corroboraled oy me undispu|ed laol lnal wmle me Malayslen Government nad announoed me oonvalslan ol lhe LRT3 Project llorn me FDP model lo lne fixed onoe model‘ lne aolual novallon agreernenl was only slgrled on 22.2.2u1e 35 I find lnal lne sleps which followed me Malayslarl Governmenrs press release were clearly lakerl lo lmplemsnl declslcns lnal had already been made‘ oonlrary lo we lnduslnal couns findlrlg man an. n of X5 am GFsaWwlIzEuAuyVuANoA «we. Smnl luvlhnrwm a. d... a mm he anvn.l-v MW: dnuavlml v. nFluNa penal 1ne ac|ua\ ocsn opnnnnsannon exermse nan also no\ naken place an me hme nna cnanrnams were Iamuna|ed' as The Indusnnan Cam ansa canned to consider Ihe malenal eneans or me changes announced Dy me Malaysnan Govamnnenn vnde nna press Mlesse dated 12 7 2012‘ m yaflicular, "15 reduction II’! the scale 0! nne mm Pmnecn and an exnension annne pmject hmshnswhere nna Applncam was reqmred no do ness wnrk over a longer period on nnns. 37 More irnponannny, I find man me 7"’ Responaenn had oornoaded ounng nne prooeeding belore nna nnoosnnan caunn nnan ms changes annuunaau oy nne Mnnnslry an Fmance nn July 2013 would noqnma resnruclunng by me Appnicann ‘[5] o nsnnagaan no you mm nmongnolhnrlhnngs axlandmg nn. smaon daadlms by new addnbonal years would nnanananny anvacn ma namre. smpe ano nnlemnly M wnvk Involved Maannng no say Balm-e lhns ma Cumuiny waum luv: :2. -xuacn-a na mun an as oannvanaones by 2020 mwn had nnnnnn 2u24m mean essennally nn. um: [M lvuenaalrverablls se wurk would be mom splat! nu! Agvse or dnsagraa” A ween} n u <2 mm on an onns cnangss announcsd byxhe Mnn-nrym Fmanoen hom ma reduomn nnwsnsnonna vavnous changes no ms wupo oilhu LRT3 Frunscl annn ma levuad umalnna n pu| Ma ymn man. nn orderlo aowmmodzlz lhme charwes me Company was rammed In masses: Ind mllruclure Mi ananc womng on ma Pvuped Agree urdIsagru7 A var as. aasaa on nne aornnssnon Mine 2"“ Respondent above. me Inannsnnan courn had committed a sanaus error m fan ay falling no mnslder nns subsvannnve nrnuacn cl nna cnanges announced by nna Manaysnan Government on n2.7.2ons ano suhssquemly nmplemeruad by me Applncanln Prasarana and MRCB-GK. and wnanner ma sama wound gnve nse no a bone fide redundancy snnnanion. 39 Indeed‘ m savaran cases. such as‘ camr Pu an no Sdn and v. Sharmirni Devil [2000] I MELR 1:2; man) I ILR 302. me Induslnal Conn nas tuned with approval ma vouawnng passage nonn Harvey on |nduMrna\Cour1(Vo1 1)v Fur 15 ans sm GFmwmIzEuAa:ymxANaA “Nana sanun navnhnrwm a. met! a my n... anmnauly am. flnunmnl n. mum v-man 1». sumvlest Ivan of nflundulcy mm wmn ms mmnsss mm. mm vmuloyt - of whunvn mm. n my a. um um. :- . nc umn, and mm Business mas mm umnlay-Ix buuuu :1 II opnmllny will! 3 nduud outrun. sun ms: "nu nul be so. Yheve can just as wan be . mdundarvcy svluahcn when: we rmmaaa acmevas the same oreveu an mueasefl nuv.nu| mm leweremplvyees. ma can come about Ihlough mechumulmn av cnmpulnnulmn m ‘I111 by mcreasad aomsvmy (empnass added) 40. Funhar, me mgr. Cuurl m we case at Slupllln Bong V. FOB (M Sdn Bhd & Anor [1999] 5 MLRH 107; mm 3 MLJ 411heldlha|- [<21 im nollm lnwihnl ndundlncy In mun» orwam no Ionuu Ridundincy silulfinnx an vmnm the nusnnsss requires kwlr Imploylu at whmwrklnd mmsy on lndusmm Duspulzsl (emphasis added) 41 Gwen the above. «ms com vs nf me view (ha| by lalhng lo lake mlo oansmeramn me matenai xmpscl of me cas1 remew exemse announced by me Malaysian Govemmenl, the wmpugned Awavd cnnlzins malena\ mfirmmes of facl and law, m mac n «ans |o adequately apprecvale lha| as a resuh a1 me sa exercwse, wmcn resmled m an exxsnaaa deadlme and a redudmn us (he scope 01 me LRT3 Projecl. ma Anphcanl reqmred lewer employees to do me work 01012 2"’ Responaam. 42 Adam to (haL I a\so find that not omy am the Inausmal coun reach an vrauanal conclusmn when n new mm me east review exemsa announced was me grass release had ya! la occur ax me me me 2"“ Respundenrs serwces were lermmated, but u had a\su failed m consider the actual effed at the exemss on me LRT3 Prujecl. and specmcaHy me Appncanrs wmldome reqmremenls m relahan (helelo L Thl|ndIlSfriI|CDuI1Irrldln tumsofllcls wllun If Ind Ia givl due cons: eration in (III III-Illrlll fink ihat althnugll some of Ike luncllons and tasks of mo 2" Rnpondonl as a Resident Eng car did not nap. (hi chlngu la (III worn and complullon data av me LRT3 Project means that lhu suid funnlons and tasks could be pmmm-a by me nmalnlng Rosldunl Englnnl and accordingly, il 5! nod disputed lhll fill lwo positions van m 9! 15 am GFsnww1IzEuAuyWuANnA «ma. am nmhnrwm s. U... w my s. mm-y am. dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! sum nnmuum TINGGI mum on KUALA LUIIPUR mum WILAVAH pznszxurum xunu LUMPUR, muvsm (auucuw KUASA-KUASA mus) rzmononm um K ssmuuu KEHM mu no wuszvmvmzu Dllam parka/a Award Mahkamah Fvrusahaan Na 334 Tahun 2:221 bvnankh 2242021 den auenma clan Pemnmn um 2912021 damn Kes Minksmih Pevusahaan Nu A/44455/19 Dan Dalam perkara mm plmmmvvan umuk Fgnntah Cenmran Dan oaxam Derkam Sekxynn 2o Akla Pemubullgin Pemsahaan 1967 Dan Dawn pemara menoenau Jaduav 1, ma Mammn Kahnbdnun «sea Dun Dzlam Derkava Aturan 53 Kaedarvkaedah Mahkimah zmz ANTARA Muss cumuusan and Femomn DAN 1 Mlhlumah Puusahaan Mllaylla 2. momma Nun am Naslr Mnhlmafl Reapumwkesponaen Heard mgslner mu /Duiengar bersama v... 1 .7: :5 sm smw.mzm.nmN.,. «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! (inciuding tm Ielevanl iunotions and Inks) wore combined and rzurvomiod by a eingie Resldanl Engln 5]. The Industrial court omd when it t led to give due consideration to ma material fact that in. s cllon pvocna MI!!! by (III Applllzanl wu fnlr and npnrop blcluln an tn. empioyses ware engaged on fixed nemi lwnlvactsi trio assessment was conducted by me ctii Resifllnl Englnur and the 1 action we: I: d an lhn mu and lunctions enacted by the reduced scorn oflhu LRT3 Project. 43 in this respect irind tnat the 1“ Respondent lailed to apprecietetnat ine oiincipie at ‘Last in, Fiist Oul (LIFO) was or iiniiied utility in me irislanl case, as all Resident Engineers including me 2"“ Resvondenll were engaged an siiniiar fixed-term contracts 411 Far Ihis reason. I view lhal it was appropriale far the Anplinarll lo proceed. as it dld, by assessing the overall peflormarioe 01 all Residenl Engineers engaged in me LRY3 Pioiect and oiedioanng IIS decision based on ils assessment 45 in Sarawak snoii and v. Ismail Sahal 5 075 [m2] I MELR mi [2002] 2 [LR 371,015 lndusIrIa|CourIac:epled a departure from lhs UFO Drlriclple in a lelrenchmerll exercise ooseiving Inter aiia as lcliows - ‘Yhe mun agieee win ine submission oi ieeined counsel «or one company on me non-ngbdny oi ins UFO pnriclple mm are amni- aulhorllins inn dlcidl mail in snioioiyu may Ior sound And in mum d-pan [mm sltlclly applying tn. use pnnciets. Such dn nuns In in: wind on in. null 54 in. -hlllly, cnmpmlbllllyi ei.-naeainy and urriclency of Jnninl afliclrs who am mu rd in pnhrnncn la mmr aoniei aiviem dd. Io IIII amine lnhensts omi umployur." (empnasis addedi As Likewise, in Alumna uiarauki hlrl Abdul Rusk v. coicom Networks sdn BM [2013] MELRIJ 2004 me Industnai ceim observed as follwvs: - v... 11 an; N GFsdWMIZEuAdyWuANnA we Smll mmhnrwlll be UIQG M new i... nflfllnnllly MVMI m.i.i. Vfl nFiuNG Wm! 47 4a 49 50 5|. 52 ‘Ill me absence al dnuble standard or nesrrss, me calm r... In: ml: Ia plly In (M uunrrlem pres. mpleryud eyme company lempnasrs added) In mwleu Packard (M) Sdn aha v. Thangasamy arewn Grunlyulham noon] 1 MELR 1l2;[200D]1ILR198,|helrldusInal Court held as lellews. » ‘In reel oemeo uses shuw that ll ls me Implnyu who r. on ludgu ul me -rrrployu-s poflovmlnnu me me llllpluyul has no clvlalcn hm to accent Ihis jrmgrrrem rm ecnplnyel who nullnnnd mo uvnulnl mm onlvln mew mu M Ma mm mm. no-.~ lerhphasrs added) Based on the above. I find that the lndus1rlaI Court erred ln finding mat me Appllcanl was ohllgaled II.) rnlorm me 2- Respormeru abnm the ippralsal and the reason lheraof, and the (allure Ia du so rendered me appralsal male fldes The findlngs ol me lnduslnal courr are clearly rn mnfllcl wlzh eslaolrsneo lnduslrlal lurlsprudence, whroh has held |haI lhere ls no requlremehr lo na|lfy employees at me selecuon process or ID corroucl appralsals personally mm me employees Funlrer, me lnduslvlal Ccun ccmmllled e sennus error of can by determinlng lhal l| was lrlcumben| upon lhe Appllcanl (0 Lake sepemle sleps lo address me 2m Responderrrs perlormanoe, when your perlormenoe was never rhe basls luv me 2"“ Respondenrs ursmlssal The lnouslnal Court also lalled lo appreclale that the cmerla employed oy Ihe Applrcerrr, In wl|, assessmg lhe Resldenl Erlglneels‘ respective yeriorrnancasl and lelrmg mlo wnslderatlcn oomplelrrls vlssawrs me 2" Respenoenrs oerlorrrrenoe were a relevanl mener lor lhe Applleml lo lake lrllo cnnslderallon ln seleclmg which slalllo relrench lrom lhe LRT3 Prolecl, and «ms ls sepemle and dlsllhcl lrom a (ermlnauon for poor perlormanoe. Further, the lrlfluslnll Court had entirely lgrlored Ihe Anpllcanfs oomparelive organrselron charls, Whlch had reflected the mnsolldallon ol several posmons and me rumoval cl cerlaln fBSDOVVSlDl\Y|IESl whlch were taken over by MRCB~GK e... n n? 15 m GFsowwllzEuAa:ymxANeA ‘Nair Smul luvlhnrwm .. med e may r... nflmnullly mm. mm. VI nFluNa Wm! 53 Added lo lnal, l find lhal the lnduslrial courl did nol address me clearly relevanl lac: (hall under me Aonlicanrs new organisation charts. lne ‘Quality Assurance no longer exisleo, moreolleli conlemporaneous mmmunlcalluns belweeri lne Aoolioam and MRCB-GK Idnher eanrirrned lnal lne ‘fiuallly ;e.eurenoe' Iunclmn would be MRCEGK responsibility. 54. Slml|arly,(helndusIniaICoul1 did nol address the fact mat the 0|’!!! Residenl Engineer roles were consolidated, for examplai whereas there had previously been lwo Resident Engineer (M&E) rolee rnese nad subsequsnlly neen Combined inlo a single posiliori. conclusion 55 Fremised on me reasons given above, l am oi lne View lnal lne lnddslnal courl s findings aswnlainad in me impugned Award were marred by rrialerial errors ofracl and law. 55 rrie leanied clieirmen oi lrie lndusmel Caurl nad occasioned a luridamenlal ermr wnen he construed me lerms oi me 2"“ Respondenls employment mnlract to mean man his employment could only oe lerrninaled pursl.lnrl| lo lne lnree express coridilions slaled (herein and for no other reason including redundancy 57 The lndnslrinl ceurn error was iimner compounded wnen ii lunlier concluded that me conlraclual lenris between the Applioanii MRCB- GK and Pi-asarana dlveclly alleoled the Aoplicarirs powerio dismiss ils employees. 55 The Industrial ooun occasioned ldruier senoos errors o1 fad and law wneri ll oendluded lnsl ine eosi reyiew exercise oy lne Malaysian Goyernrnenl nad nolyel been implernenled as in me lime o1 lrie 2” Rspondenrs dismissal, wnereoy I! lied lailed lo properly aooreeiaie the press release oy lne Minielry oi Finance dared ‘2n7»2m8i and riad iurlnerniore leiled lo lake lnlo considerelon lrie subslanllve efiects oi the changes announoed by the Malaysian eoirerrinieni lo the LRT3 Proiecl Fun 1: ml 15 rn GFmWwlIZEuAuyVuANnA ‘Nair Smll luvlhnrwlll r. in... e my in. nflnlnullly MIMI flnuavlml vn .rinne WVM 59 Funher‘ me Industrial own erred in M appreuauon and appncamon M the selection cmana adopled by the Applncarn In se\ec1Ing me 2"“ Respondent for redundancy, whemnn me mauscnsu Cnurl had applied the reqmremenxs for msnussan an the grounds M poor pedormance‘ wmch are mapphzable and e\evanl to ma |ns|anl rams so Prermsed on me aroresam reasons, I am 0! me view man the daemon onne mduscnal Courl ws lainled wuh the error oflaw and/or mauonamy and/or unreasonameness wmch wananl me cunal mswenuon av this Court. in. As such. \ allowed the Appllcanfs applicahnn lur mdmizl rm/new m JR 268, JR 269. JR 270 and JR 271. C051 0! RM 1,500.00 wnn aHocaIuv to be paid Dy me 2* Respondent m JR 268, JR 259‘ JR 270 and JR 271 In the Aunncam Dated: 1')’ January 2024 Ahmad Kamal hm Md snarua Judge High Caun Kua\a Lumpur v... u M 2; n4 smwmummrmm mm. Snr1I\nauhnrw\HI>e U... n may he nrW\n|H|Y mum: mmn VI mum WM counsels Far the Appflcanl. am 1 Thavalmgam (Enmk David Tan Sang Keat wnh mm) Teluan T. Thavalmgam ea. Co Peguambela flan Peguamcara sums K-341‘ ms 3‘ B\oK K. Na 2, Jalan suuans. semis Mon| Knara‘ 50480 Kua\a Lumnur. Fm me 2" Respondent: Enclk Mohammad Am bm Shanpufldnn Teluan Razi1.Abdu\A1Iz 5 Partners Peguambela den Feguamcara 33-3 .3. am am Fkmn Bmck 3‘ Megan Avenue 1, No, :99, Jalan Tun Razak. some Kuala Lumpur (Ru; Tuan- 43951/19/RAAP/MASlU—hak|mj ..ms.us m smwmuzmmmmaa mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max mum MAHKAMAN nusm DMLAVA nu KUALA LUIIPUR mum wnuvm wsnssxumm KLIALA LUIGPUR. muvau (amuzunu KuAsu<uAsA sous) Pzrwonomm umux ssmuuu KEHAKIMAN MD M gs.2mm2u21 mm parkara Award Mankamah Plrusahaan Na s32 ram 202: benankh 2242021 am mtsvlma men Femohon pads 194202! awn Kai Mahkzmah Ferusahaan Na A/A4486/19‘ nan Dalam pemara sualu ne/mahanan unluk Permian Calxamru Dan Damn perkara Seksyen 2:: Am Pemubungan Fem:-Ihiun I951‘ Dan Dalam nelkara manuenau Jeans‘ 1‘ Am Mahkamah Kehakvman 1964. Dan Dawn parkara Aluran 53 Ksedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA Muss Cansulxsdn ans Pemohnn am 4. Mahkamah Pcmnhun why... 2 mum: B-hurl um Ibrlhlm Rnspundaniespnnflnn me-ms sm smwmummmmaa «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Judgment Inlmduclion t The Applicant nad med judicial review applillltan Na WA—252B8r G7/2021 (JR 283). ND.: WA-25»269»D7/2021 (JR 28D), Nu . WA-25- 270-07/2021 (.|R27o) and No WA—25-271-07/2021 (JR 211) under order 5: oi tne Rutes at court zotz (RDC) ior amongst otners. an Order 07 Certtorart to quash the Induslnnt Court Awards N0 835 of 2021, No 531 012021, No: 834 1752021 and ND 832 of 2021 da|ed 22.4 2021 respec' Vy 2 Aitnoudrt lhese annitceimns emanate irorn separate Awards at ttte industrial court, they an relate to wnat are essentially tdenttcat lens. tndaad, att iour cases were heard lagelhevin tne proceedings oeiore tne tndtrstrtei Conn, and me oontents oi tne Awards trtentsetves are suostanttvety rdenttoat 3 In the above Award, tne First Respondent (lndunrlal court) new that the Second Respondent tn JR 268, JR 259, JR 270 and JR 271 nad been dtsmtssed by the Apotrcantwttttout tust cause and excuse 4 JR 26% JR 270 and JR 271 are fixed to be heard together with this JR 268. 5. Alter the hearing I allowed me Applicants appttoations tn JR 268, JR 259. JR 270 and JR 271 i win now set out the grounds at my judgment Background Fact! 6, Tne Iecte Ieadtng to ma mtng 01.“? 268. JR 269, JR 270 and JR 271 are atrrtost tdenttcat and are adopted wttn andlar without modificauon from the parties’ written submissions and can be summarized as Ioltws: - 61 Tne Applicant ts a firm ot oonsuntng engineers and was appolnlsd by Prasarana Malaysia aarnad (Puuronn) to went on me Light Rail Transit Line 3 (western corrtdort Page 5 ms rn GFsdWwtIZEuIu1yVuANoA ‘None s.n.t luvthnrwm .. .r..a a may t... nflmnnttly mtmn dnuavtml VI nFtuNfl vtmxt l=rolecl (the um Prolm). A| lns malanal lama, MRCE- George Kent Sdn Ehd (IIRCB-GK or (he l.hen—PDFj was appolnled as me ‘Prolecl Dellvery Partner rasporlslble lorlhe management and supervlslarl of the LRT 3 Pmled’, albell the uluma|e owner ol Ihe LRT3 Fralecl was and ls the Malayslan Gnvernmenl, whlch malrllalned final aulhonxy over the same a.2 The 2"‘ Rsspondanl was specifically employed lo work on me slle cl lns LRT3 Prolool as a Resrdenl Englnaev. Llghl Hall Transll 3 —Wes1em corndor, lor a cwoyeav rlxed penod lrorn 3.7 zmv unlll 30 6.2019, wrm a oasrc salary ol RM le.oou.oo par rnonln 5.3. Follawlng me 14*" Geneml Electlons on 9.5.2015. me then- naw Malayslsn Gavemmarn lmplemanlad a revlew or all Isrgs» scale prolecls. mcluding the LRT3 Prolscl 5 4 MRCB-GK nsd rnslmaad |he Aoolrcanl [as well as all omar sub-conlractors lnvolved In me LRT3 Pmlecl) lo nold all reviews and approvals lor snoo drawrngs and submsslons and no stop overlime and sum umy one work as Thereafler. mere was an announcement lay me Mlnlstry ol Flnanee on 12.7.2013 lnax, wnrle lne LRT3 l=ro,ec1 would canllnue, there would be slgnlficanl changes made. lnoludlng rnleralla me Iollawlng 7 (a) the llmelme lor wmplellon of ms LRT3 Pmjecl was revlsed fram 2n2lJ to 2024. (bl more would be a naduclron In one overall oonslruollon size and design oi lne LRT [ram depot and LRT svalions due lo me change lvom 42 sets or scar lrarns lo 22 sels ora- canralns. and lol me oonslruchon omve slallons would be shelved and me 2km underground tunnel and underground stauan at Persraran Hisnammuddrn, snarl Alarn would be canoellad v... ; ans m omwwuzzmmumaa ‘None Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. o... w my r... nflmnullly mum: dnuavlml w. .nuna Wm! 5 6 The above cnanges eflecfively enrauea slgmficanl changes to and an overau reduclxm m scape, whereby me LRT3 Prorecn was changed mm a Prqecx Dclwary Farmer model ha a fixed pnce (Le. turnkey or ‘Design and Bum‘) contram 6 7 The various contractors mvmvad m the LRT3 PNJBCI ware Informed of the cos| re-new exercwse mvowing the Mvuslry er Finance we letters dated 2 7 2619 and 9.7.2018‘ whereby more aspects 0! me LRT3 Pmrect warn DIAI on hold or ummad enurely. venous rneenngs were also hem mn MRCE~GK w drscuss the ws| 0plimIsE|IDrI exemse, mcludmg mler aha Ihe ormssmn with: 51x Smllons. a.e. Around October zms, me anecme was given by MRCB»GK to oo\|o<;live\y mslmclure (ha LRT3 Frayed orgarusafion Chan and sue supemsron staff to supper! the new “Design and Build’ rnouer. ms meant me Apphcanfs organrsauon, wgexher vntn me other uexaneu Des-gn cone-man: mu noes) were expecied |o work with MRCBGK mm rewer s\af1 m/era“. s 9 Based on an 01 the above. the Avphcant ennuumed a revrew ohls szamng needs and reorganized the teams‘ where among other «rungs, me Me MAE‘ neanu were merged, and me ouamy Assurance‘ mncuon was transferred rmrn me Apphcam |u MRCBGK 61D.Funher and In add on to |he above, mere had been sugnincanx aerays In payment rrorn Mxcaeokr when were suosxannal rn namre and had eenousry slrarnad me Applicant‘: resources These delays nau amounted to saveml rnunens over a srgnmcann Ienglh or lime, and had prompled the Apphcant |o rngnngm to MRCE~GK |he extreme ermeumes m paying sva« assrgnea lo the LRT3 Project on mu Iple oocasmns. and were even repcrled m me news 611. The Apphcanl had cm of necessny Immemerlled a salary dalerment scnerne (or aw staff eammg above RM 5,000 on a month‘ sramng m as reuer dated 2132013 |e an sum as lallaws - ‘Ruennoe Vs made to mnlnwn nan melting on me 22 June mm and 21 Auwusx zara ;..nam rn GFmww1IzEuAuymxANeA we a.n.r lunhnrwm s. H... a my r... annnn-y am. dnuamnl VI mum war As discussed ano agreed we hereby wrifivm mat as a result oi curlanl malke|mIrdl|\uru and ma aeraun in icmdulad Dlymlntl by our nreror wants tna management has In attarna we out to lmplsmanla salary aelemiem exarsiseiorstart earning more tnan am: am a month ‘ 512 Flowing lrnrn all oi tne above‘ lfl order to restructure its operations lollowlng the cost-reduction tllrectnres cf tne Malaysian Government and to meet the revtsed seupe el tne LRT3 vralecti the Applicant was necessarily required to reoonstdertls manpower requirements 613 Prerniretl on me laregelng, tne Apphcanfs Chled Resident Engineer had assesses: tne various employees under his purview. and tne venous teams were restnrolurea based on lrie changes to the LRY3 Project 514 As a result, Slgnlficam changes were made‘ Including me merging of bath Mes rearns into one and me lransfer of Quality Assurance respunstbllmes lronr the Applicant (under the PDP model) Io MRCB-GK [under me Design and Hum!‘ rneeelt consequently, ten no) employees were lotmd to be redundant including 01:2" Ravspondervl s 15 Not long after rnet, lne Apptroant had by way or a letter daled 29 3.2015 proceeded to terminate the 2“ Respondent lrorn his employment eilectrve on 3l.lu zola, due to the primary reason tnet the MRCE—GK talent) has instructed the Apnllcanlln partially rrela oeflalri ponions oirne Projacl as part or tne Protect‘: cos! optlrntzatron semis: by the Malaysian Government. 5 ls Dissatisfied with the termination, the 2"“ Responl1enI.Iogelrier witrt three other aflecled employees, had lhereafler filed a represerilalton of unlawful dismissal at the Industrial Rslalinns Department under seuiun 20 or the lntlustrial Relations Act 1967, wnlcn was trtereaiter relerred lo me lriduslnal Courl by tne Honourable Minister M Human Resources lor adludlcallun, 5.17 Ferlmanlly, me 2"“ Respondent‘: pleaded case was tner tnere was no genuine redundancy unuenyrng tne decision to Lermlnale ms services‘ whereby hts positions and luncnons mucus ru GFmWwiIZEuAuyVuANnA ‘Nate s.n.i luvlhnrwm r. u... a my r... nflnlnuflly MIMI flnuavlml VI .nuno war were stm tn extslenue Moreover, he asserted that me Apptrcant was not undergoing any nnanctat dtmountes wntcn requrred that ne he retrencned 5 Is. wrtn the agreement of all paruest all tour cases were neerd |oge|hev were tne tndustnat oeurt. 5.19. The tndustnal Conn subsequently proceeded to hand down tne tmpugned Award deted 22.4 2021 tmtdtrrg |hat Inc 2"” Respondent had been dtsmlssed wilhoul just cause or excuse and ordered tne Apphcanl |o paytne 2"‘ Respondenta hate: 0! RM moon on in back wages 5.20. The Appllcam. being dtssatisfied wttn tne tmpugned Award, Ihevsafler Nari the Instant appfinaltcn for judicial review, seekmg the wrtal inlervanhun Oflhls Honourable COLIN The grounds for just ‘II rvvlnw 7. Based on tne 5la|emenL tne Apphcanl seeks to cneuenqe the rndustriat court dectston based on the following grounds: - ‘M The! ma lnduslnal Conn had erred In {an and law when it rnrsapptted tne Iegat pnnctples germane lo redundancy and relmnchmam; specmcauyt when it erroneousty aonuuded tnat tne 2"'= Respondent‘: employment contract eeutd only be valtdly Iermmaled fulluwing tne edrnptetrun or tennmatran at the LRT3 Fmjacl‘ 7 2 ThalII1e|ndus(rIa|COIm nad erved In tact and taw when rt had cnnduded tnat a redundancy slluahon could nnly ans: upon the cancallslton or r we 0! the LRT3 Project: 7 3 That the tndustnat Conn had erred In tact and law and had taken rntn cansrderatuon trrelevent matters wnen tl had oancluded mat tne Anphcanl was requved to obtain the permrssron ul Presarana end/or MRCEVGK to temnnate the servtce oi the 2“ Rasvnndent »..u.,ru rn GFsdwmIzEuAa:ymxANeA ‘Nate s.n.t luvthnrwm r. u... e my r... nrwtnuflly MIMI dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 7.4 The indusuriai court erred in Ierms or facts wnen n icund inai me ccsi review camed oul by me Maiaysran Government nad ndi yet been made an ine dale oi lerrmnahon 01 me 2"“ Respondents SBNIDG, whereby the indusinei cdun iaiied lo |ake mlo aoeouni me conienis oi ine Ministry 0! Finances press release daied 127 2015 announcing the various measures to reduce me casl and scope otme LRT3 Proieci: The lndusilial coun erred in fact when il iaiied to give due oonsiderallnri mine rnaienai and undispuied vests, speafically me measures to reduce me cost and scope oi the LRT3 Pmied announced by the Ministry on Finance, which had resuiied In a vedualon in me Applicanfs pereonnei requirernenis: 76 Tne indusirial Courl erred in terms oflacts when ii med (0 give due aonsideralion Io Ihe malenal fact mat aiincugn some cnne hmclmns and Iasks mine 2" Respondenl as a Residwil Engirieerdld nut sippi ine change mine scope and oornpienen daia at me LRT3 Prciecl means that me said runcnons and (asks oouid be periormed by me ramaimng Residerfl Engrneer and accordingiy, ii is rim disputed that one Iwo posiucns (including me velevaril iuncncns and vasksi were combined and perionned by a eingie Residanl Engineer, and 7.7. The irrdusinai Ocurl erred wnen ii railed to give due cansidaralmn lo the maienai iaci inai ma selection process used bylhe Applicant was lairand appropnaie because an me employees were engaged on fixed ienn oonuacis. ine assessrneni was oamiucted by me cniei Resrdeni Engineer and the seiecimn was based on me areas and iunciidns aiiecied by me reduced scape oi me LRT3 Prqecl Tho uw 8 Judiaai Revrew is eneraily concerned with the decision making process where me mpugned decision is flawed on me ground oi prooedurai impropriely. me In al is ru GFsdwmIzEuMymxANaA ‘Nana s.n.i luvihnrwm a. met! a my r... unmnniily MIMI dnuaviml VI .nune Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-45A-162-12/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LIM KOK KHENG

Perbicaraan jenayah - kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952, seksyen 12(2) ADB dan seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952;Di akhir kes pendakwaan Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie - Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan;Dadah dan racun yang dijumpai daripada dalam beg silang 'Mont Blanc' yang dijumpai di atas kotak tempat letak tangan (armrest) kereta Peugeot yang dipandu oleh Tertuduh semasa menuju ke parkir Restoran 33;Terdapat keraguan yang munasabah terhadap jagaan atau kawalan serta pengetahuan Tertuduh ke atas dadah dan racun tersebut;SP5 yang ditangkap bersama-sama dengan Tertuduh tidak dituduh- SP5 pernah dituduh dan dihukum di mahkamah berkaitan kes dadah- malahan SP5 pernah mengguna dan memandu kereta Peugeot tersebut;Pemilik kereta (SP4) tidak dapat mengesahkan siapa yang menggunakan kereta tersebut selepas beliau ditangkap;Terdapat keraguan apabila hanya kad pengenalan Tertuduh sahaja yang turut dijumpai bersama dadah dan racun tersebut dalam beg silang 'Mont Blanc' tanpa ada apa-apa barang peribadi Tertuduh yang lain seperti dompet dan telefon;Mahkamah amat berhati-hati dalam menilai keterangan dalam kes pendakwaan terutamanya ke atas tangkapan dan serbuan yang dibuat oleh polis berdasarkan maklumat (tip off).Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada 3 pertuduhan.

14/01/2024

YA Tuan Hasbullah bin Adam

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=30274016-ca3e-49d2-8e9c-c9b13a0191fd&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO. BA-45A-162-12/2021 & BA-45-37-12/2021 PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN LIM KOK KHENG [770704-14-5541] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Lim Kok Kheng (“Tertuduh”) telah dituduh di Mahkamah ini dengan 2 kes seperti berikut: (a) BA-45A-162-12/2021 – bagi 1 pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 243 gram [Pertuduhan 1] di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] (“ADB”); (b) BA-45-37-12/2021 – bagi 2 pertuduhan memiliki dadah berbahaya jenis 3,4-Methlynedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) masing-masing seberat 2.01 gram [Pertuduhan 2] 14/01/2024 14:23:35 BA-45A-162-12/2021 Kand. 62 S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 dan 0.42 gram di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB [Pertuduhan 3] serta 1 lagi pertuduhan memiliki racun jenis Flubromazolam seberat 25.4 gram yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-bendzodiazepine [Pertuduhan 4], di bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 [Akta 366]. [2] Pertuduhan-pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh adalah seperti berikut: Pertuduhan 1 [ekshibit P4] “Bahawa kamu pada 18 November 2020 jam lebih kurang antara 8.45 hingga 9.45 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Dagang SD 2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah mengedar dadah berbahaya, iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 243 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan 2 [ekshibit P5] “Bahawa kamu pada 18 November 2020 jam lebih kurang antara 8.45 hingga 9.45 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Dagang SD 2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah memiliki dadah berbahaya, iaitu 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) seberat 2.01 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan 3 [ekshibit P6] “Bahawa kamu pada 18 November 2020 jam lebih kurang antara 8.45 hingga 9.45 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Dagang SD 2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah memiliki dadah berbahaya, iaitu 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) seberat 0.42 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan 4 [ekshibit P8] “Bahawa kamu pada 18 November 2020 jam lebih kurang antara 8.45 hingga 9.45 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Dagang SD 2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam milikan kamu racun, iaitu Flubromazolam seberat 25.4 gram yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-bendzodiazepine dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 30(5) Akta yang sama.” S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [3] Pada 11.8.2023, Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh bagi pertuduhan-pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB dan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952. Justeru, Mahkamah ini memerintahkan supaya Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri ke atas Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4 tersebut. [4] Namun begitu, Mahkamah ini merumuskan pada akhir kes pendakwaan ini bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan sepenuhnya elemen-elemen kesalahan bagi Pertuduhan 3 iaitu bagi kesalahan memiliki dadah berbahaya jenis 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) tersebut. Justeru, Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh bagi pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan memerintahkan supaya Tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri ke atas Pertuduhan 3 tersebut. Tertuduh telah mengaku salah ke atas Pertuduhan 3 tersebut yang mana telah disabitkan kesalahan serta dihukum dengan pemenjaraan 5 tahun dan denda RM10,000.00 (jika tidak bayar 3 bulan penjara). [5] Pihak pendakwaan telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini melalui 2 notis rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia masing-masing bertarikh 24.8.2023 berkaitan dengan keputusan melepas dan membebaskan Tertuduh daripada Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4. Alasan Penghakiman ini adalah berkaitan dengan notis- notis rayuan tersebut sahaja. S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Ringkasan Kes Pendakwaan [6] Perbicaraan kes ini telah bermula pada 12.6.2023 dan pihak pendakwaan telah menutup kes pendakwaan pada 16.6.2023 setelah memanggil seramai 5 orang saksi pendakwaan seperti berikut: SP1: Dr. Nur Nazihah binti Md Shahari (Ahli Kimia Narkotik); SP2: Insp. Nurul Hadi bin Haron Mansor (Jurufoto dan Pegawai Penyiasat); SP3: Insp. Darwis bin Aripin (Pegawai Serbuan); SP4: Chin Kek Hiong (Pemilik asal kereta); dan SP5: Chaw Hee Mun (Kawan Tertuduh di kedai makan). [7] Pada 18.11.2020 jam lebih kurang 5 petang, Insp. Darwis bin Aripin (SP3) telah memperoleh maklumat jabatan mengenai aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang dijalankan oleh seorang saspek lelaki cina dengan menggunakan sebuah kereta Peugeot berwarna putih No. W6341N di kawasan Jalan Dagang SD2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (“Lokasi Serbuan’). [8] Bertindak atas maklumat tersebut, SP3 telah mengadakan taklimat ringkas kepada pasukan serbuan yang terdiri daripada 3 pasukan serbuan pada 18.11.2020 jam lebih kurang 8 malam. [9] Pada jam lebih kurang 8.15 malam, pasukan serbuan telah berlepas daripada pejabat BSJN IPD Petaling Jaya dengan menaiki kereta pasukan yang tidak berlambang. Pasukan serbuan telah sampai di Lokasi Serbuan pada jam lebih kurang 8.45 malam dan membuat pemerhatian. Lebih kurang 15 minit kemudian, SP3 telah nampak sebuah kereta jenis S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Peugeot berwarna putih dengan nombor pendaftaran W6341N (“Kereta Peugeot”) telah berhenti dalam petak parkir berhadapan Restoran 33 dan seterusnya telah keluar seorang lelaki cina pemandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut (yang kemudiannya dicamkan sebagai Tertuduh) serta seorang perempuan cina iaitu penumpang hadapan Kereta Peugeot tersebut. Kedua-duanya telah menuju masuk ke dalam Restoran 33. [10] SP3 bersama dengan pasukan serbuan 1 dan 2 telah masuk ke dalam Restoran 33 tersebut dan memperkenalkan diri sebagai pegawai polis. Hasil pemeriksaan badan oleh SP3 ke atas Tertuduh telah menjumpai daripada dalam poket sebelah kiri hadapan seluar yang dipakai oleh Tertuduh dan seterusnya merampas- (a) 1 peket plastik lutsinar yang berisi 5 biji pil disyaki ekstasi [ekshibit P12(A)]; dan (b) 1 anak kunci berserta alat kawalan jauh kereta [ekshibit P20]. [11] Manakala hasil pemeriksaan badan ke atas seorang perempuan cina yang bersama dengan Tertuduh itu iaitu Chaw Hee Mun (SP5) tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. [12] Kemudiannya, SP3 bersama dengan anggota serbuan serta disaksikan oleh Tertuduh dan perempuan cina tersebut (SP5) telah menuju ke Kereta Peugeot yang diparkir di hadapan Restoran 33 tadi. Dengan menggunakan anak kunci dan alat kawalan jauh yang telah dirampas tadi, SP3 telah membuka pintu hadapan bahagian pemandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut. S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [13] Hasil pemeriksaan daripada dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut telah menjumpai 1 beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ [ekshibit P21] daripada atas kotak tempat letak tangan (armrest) di bahagian tengah antara tempat duduk pemandu dan penumpang hadapan, yang mengandungi 1 plastik warna hitam dengan tulisan ‘Thank You Terima Kasih’ [ekshibit P13(A)] yang dijumpai di dalamnya seperti berikut: (a) 16 peket plastik yang mengandungi bahan kristal jernih disyaki dadah Syabu [ekshibit P13(B1 – B16)]; (b) 16 keping foil aluminium yang berikat gelang getah berisi sejumlah 160 biji tablet berwarna oren disyaki pil Erimin 5 [ekshibit P13(C1 – C16)]; (c) 1 peket plastik lutsinar berisi 16 biji tablet disyaki pil Ekstasi [ekshibit P13(D)]; (d) 1 kad pengenalan Malaysia atas nama: Lim Kok Kheng [ekshibit P22]. [14] Semua barang rampasan daripada Lokasi Serbuan adalah seperti mana disenaraikan dalam Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P23]. SP3 juga telah membuat laporan polis berkenaan pemeriksaan dan tangkapan di Lokasi Serbuan tersebut seperti mana dalam Sri Damansara Report No. 6713/20 bertarikh 19.11.2020 [ekshibit P25]. [15] Semua barang rampasan barang kes kemudiannya telah diserahkan oleh SP3 kepada Pegawai Penyiasat iaitu Insp. Nurul Hadi bin Haron Mansor (SP2) pada 19.11.2020 jam lebih kurang 3.45 pagi di S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BSJND, IPD Petaling Jaya, seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P24]. [16] SP2 telah memasukkan barang-barang rampasan dadah ke dalam 2 sampul surat surat bermeterai PDRM (sampul-sampul surat bertanda ‘HM1’ dan ‘HM2’) dan telah dihantar kepada Ahli Kimia iaitu Dr. Nur Nazihah binti Md Shahari (SP1) untuk tujuan analisis seperti mana permintaan untuk pemeriksaan dalam borang Polis 31 [ekshibit P27]. SP1 telah mengeluarkan resit rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bagi mengesahkan penerimaan 2 sampul surat tersebut daripada SP2 pada 23.11.2020 jam 2.36 petang, seperti dinyatakan dalam Resit Rasmi [ekshibit P10]. [17] SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan menyediakan laporan analisis seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-22725 [ekshibit P11]. Hasil analisis oleh SP1 telah mendapati bahawa – (a) 1 peket plastik lutsinar yang berisi 5 biji tablet tersebut [ekshibit P12(A)] adalah didapati seperti berikut: (i) 1 biji tablet berwarna merah mengandungi 0.12 gram 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); (ii) 1 biji tablet berwarna merah jambu mengandungi 0.34 gram promethazine; (iii) 1 biji tablet berwarna hijau mengandungi 0.15 gram 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); dan S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (iv) 2 biji tablet berwarna biru mengandungi 0.15 gram 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); [4 biji tablet MDMA tersebut dengan jumlah berat 0.42 gram merupakan rampasan daripada dalam poket sebelah kiri hadapan seluar yang dipakai oleh Tertuduh yang menjadi subjek dalam Pertuduhan 3] (b) 1 beg plastik hitam [ekshibit P13(A)] adalah didapati di dalamnya seperti berikut: (i) Bahan kristal jernih daripada 16 peket plastik [ekshibit P13(B1 – B16) adalah mengandungi 243.0 gram methamphetamine; [Merupakan subjek bagi Pertuduhan 1] (ii) 160 biji tablet berwarna oren daripada 16 keping foil [ekshibit P13(C1 – C16] adalah mengandungi 25.4 gram flubromazolam; dan [Merupakan subjek bagi Pertuduhan 4] (iii) 16 biji tablet masing-masing berwarna merah, biru dan hijau daripada dalam peket plastik [ekshibit P13(D)] adalah mengandungi jumlah keseluruhan 2.01 gram 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). [Merupakan subjek bagi Pertuduhan 2] [18] Menurut SP1 lagi, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) dan methamphetamine adalah dadah berbahaya yang termasuk dalam S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Jadual Pertama ADB. Manakala Flubromazolam yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-benzodiazepine adalah racun yang termasuk dalam Jadual Pertama dan Ketiga (Bahan Psikotropik) Akta Racun 1952. Hujahan Pihak-Pihak Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan Pihak Pendakwaan [19] Pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan berkenaan elemen-elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan iaitu: (a) Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti yang tersenarai dalam ADB 1952. Manakala Flubromazolam pula yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-bendzodiazepine adalah racun yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama dan Ketiga (Bahan Psikotropik) Akta Racun 1952 seperti mana dalam pertuduhan; (b) Dadah dan racun tersebut berada dalam milikan (possession) Tertuduh; (c) Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah dan racun yang dirampas; dan (d) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar (trafficking) dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine bagi Pertuduhan 1. S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [20] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa elemen pertama berkenaan identiti dadah berbahaya dan racun tersebut telah berjaya dibuktikan melalui keterangan Ahli Kimia (SP1) yang melakukan analisis terhadap barang kes dadah dan racun tersebut. [21] SP1 juga turut mengesahkan bahawa jenis dadah yang dianalisis iaitu 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) dan Methamphetamine adalah dadah berbahaya yang termasuk dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. Manakala Flubromazolam yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-benzodiazepine adalah racun yang termasuk dalam Jadual Pertama dan Ketiga (Bahan Psikotropik) Akta Racun 1952. SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan telah membuat dapatannya seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-22725 bertarikh 5.12.2020 [ekshibit P11]. [22] Selanjutnya pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan (control and custody) terhadap barang kes dadah dan racun tersebut berdasarkan yang berikut: (a) Pegawai serbuan (SP3) mengesahkan bahawa dadah ditemui dalam Kereta Peugeot yang mana berdasarkan pemerhatian selama 15 minit dipandu oleh Tertuduh. Manakala Chaw Hee Mun (SP5) pula dilihat oleh SP3 sebagai penumpang hadapan; (b) Keterangan SP5 bahawa sepanjang perkenalannya dengan Tertuduh selama hampir 7 atau 8 bulan, beliau sering melihat Tertuduh yang memandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut; S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (c) Keterangan Chin Kek Thion (SP4) pula menyatakan bahawa beliau telah membeli Kereta Peugeot tersebut secara tunai tanpa ada perjanjian jual beli daripada seorang kawan (tidak diketahui nama) yang diperkenalkan oleh seorang kawan yang lain. SP4 sempat menggunakan kereta tersebut lebih kurang dalam sebulan. Menurut SP4 lagi, kali terakhir beliau menggunakan Kereta Peugeot tersebut adalah pada bulan Februari 2020 sebelum beliau ditangkap pada Mac 2020; (d) Dadah dan racun dalam Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4 adalah ditemui dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut dan dijumpai daripada dalam sebuah beg silang Mont Blanc [ekshibit P21) bersama dengan kad pengenalan Tertuduh [ekshibit P22]; dan (e) Menurut SP5 juga, sepanjang perkenalan beliau dengan Tertuduh, beliau sering melihat Tertuduh membawa beg Mont Blanc tersebut. [23] Mengenai elemen pengetahuan pula, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah dan racun tersebut melalui inferens terhadap barang kes yang ditemui itu daripada dalam beg Mont Blanc yang sering dilihat oleh SP5 dibawa oleh Tertuduh serta turut dijumpai dalam beg tersebut adalah kad pengenalan Tertuduh sendiri. [24] Mengenai elemen pengedaran (trafficking) pula, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai milikan (possession) terhadap barang kes yang dirampas. Oleh itu anggapan di bawah S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 seksyen 37(da) ADB adalah dihujahkan sebagai terpakai bagi membuktikan elemen pengedaran (trafficking). [25] Pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan bahawa rantaian keterangan barang kes dadah tersebut adalah tidak terputus daripada mula pemeriksaan dan penemuan oleh SP3 yang mana telah membuat penandaan sendiri dan menyediakan Borang Senarai Geledah bertarikh 18.11.2020 [ekshibit P23] dan seterusnya menyerahkan kepada Insp Nurul Hadi bin Haron selaku Pegawai Penyiasat (SP2) yang disahkan melalui Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes bertarikh 19.11.2020 [ekshibit P24]. [26] SP2 pula telah menghantar barang kes dadah dan racun tersebut yang telah dimasukkan ke dalam 2 sampul bertanda ‘HM1’ dan ‘HM2’ [ekshibit P12A dan ekshibit P13A] kepada Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis yang mana telah diserahkan oleh beliau pada 23.11.2020 kepada Ahli Kimia bernama Dr. Nur Nazihah binti Md Shahari (SP1) dan dikeluarkan resit rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bertarikh 23.11.2020 sebagai bukti penerimaan [ekshibit P10]. [27] Selepas analisis oleh Ahli Kimia (SP1) disempurnakan, SP2 telah mengambil dan menerima semula barang kes dadah tersebut pada 22.12.2020 dan berikutnya disimpan di setor barang kes serta didaftarkan dalam Buku Daftar Barang Kes [ekshibit P29]. [28] Oleh yang demikian, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan berdasarkan keterangan di atas rantaian keterangan barang kes adalah tidak terputus dan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah kredibel, konsisten dan saling menyokong antara satu sama lain. S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [29] Kesimpulannya, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan dengan membuat penilaian dan mempertimbangkan keterangan-keterangan yang ada secara keseluruhan, suatu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan berkenaan telah berjaya dibuktikan terhadap Tertuduh dan memohon Tertuduh dipanggil membela diri. Pihak Pembelaan [30] Secara ringkasnya, pihak pembelaan menghujahkan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh ke atas pertuduhan-pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut. [31] Pihak pembelaan menghujahkan sedemikian berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan yang berikut: (a) Elemen pengetahuan Tertuduh terhadap dadah-dadah yang dirampas telah gagal dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan; (b) Bahawa dadah tersebut adalah milik Chaw Hee Mun (SP5) yang telah ditangkap bersama-sama dengan Tertuduh tetapi tidak dituduh; (c) Selepas tangkapan, pihak polis telah membawa Tertuduh ke Hotel Silka, Cheras yang mana terdapat unit yang disewa ke atas nama SP5 yang menunjukkan kemungkinan penglibatan SP5 dalam pengedaran dadah sebenar; (d) Malahan SP5 dalam pemeriksaan balas mengakui telah mendaftar masuk di Hotel Silka tersebut untuk tempoh S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 daripada 16.11.2020 hingga 18.11.2020. Menurut SP5 lagi, beliau pernah dijatuhkan hukuman oleh Mahkamah berkaitan kes dadah; (e) Kaitan Tertuduh dengan dadah tersebut hanyalah berdasarkan bahawa Tertuduh yang memandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut. Akan tetapi SP5 juga mengakui pernah mengguna dan memandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut; (f) Timbul kecurigaan bagaimana kad pengenalan Tertuduh sahaja boleh berada dalam beg Mont Blanc yang berisi dadah tersebut sedangkan tiada barang-barang peribadi yang lain seperti dompet, lesen memandu atau telefon bimbit Tertuduh; (g) SP4 yang mengakui memiliki Kereta Peugeot tersebut tidak dapat mengesahkan siapa yang memandu kenderaannya selepas beliau ditangkap yang mana dikatakan digunakan oleh seorang ‘kawan’. Tugas Mahkamah Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [32] Tugas Mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah bagi mempertimbangkan dan seterusnya memutuskan sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie seperti mana yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. “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.” S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [33] Suatu kes prima facie dikatakan berjaya dibuktikan hanyalah apabila pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan yang kukuh bagi membuktikan setiap dan tiap-tiap intipati/elemen kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan yang mana sekiranya gagal dipatahkan akan membawa kepada sabitan, seperti mana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah: “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.” (Penekanan ditambah) [34] Prinsip-prinsip tugas mahkamah di akhir kes Pendakwaan telah diputuskan di dalam beberapa kes tersohor termasuklah PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 yang mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan: “[15] For the guidance of the courts below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by a trial court at the close of the prosecution’s case: (i) the close of the prosecution’s case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused; (ii) ask yourself the question: If I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is “Yes”, then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is “No” then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted....” (Penekanan ditambah) [35] Elemen-elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan adalah: (a) Subjek yang terlibat dalam Pertuduhan 1, 2 dan 4 adalah dadah berbahaya dan racun menurut jenis dan kuantiti seperti berikut: (i) 243 gram Methamphetamine; (ii) 2.01 gram 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); dan (iii) 25.4 gram Flubromazolam; (b) Tertuduh mempunyai pemilikan (jagaan atau kawalan dan pengetahuan) ke atas dadah berbahaya serta racun tersebut pada tempat, masa dan tarikh yang dipertuduhkan; dan S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 (c) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar dadah (trafficking) (bagi pertuduhan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine). Analisis dan Dapatan Mahkamah Identiti Dadah Berbahaya dan Racun [36] SP1 yang merupakan Ahli Kimia dari Jabatan Kimia Malaysia dalam keterangannya telah mengesahkan bahawa Methamphetamine dan 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine tersebut adalah merupakan dadah berbahaya yang disenaraikan di bawah Jadual Pertama ADB 1952. Manakala Flubromazolam pula yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-bendzodiazepine adalah merupakan racun yang ditetapkan dalam Jadual Pertama dan Ketiga (Bahan Psikotropik) Akta Racun 1952. SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan telah membuat dapatannya seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-22725 [ekshibit P11]. [37] Tiada sebarang cabaran oleh peguambela terhadap identiti dadah yang telah diterima dan dianalisa oleh SP1. Tiada pemeriksaan balas ke atas SP1. [38] Di dalam kes Munusamy Vengadasalam v PP [1987] CLJ (Rep) 221, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “…the Court is entitled to accept the opinion of the expert of its face value, unless it is inherently incredible of the defence calls evidence in rebuttal by another expert to contradict the opinion. So long as some credible evidence S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 is given by the Chemist to support his opinion, there is no necessity for him to go into details of what he did in the laboratory, step by step.” [39] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini menerima keputusan analisis yang dibuat oleh SP1 berkaitan dengan identiti dan kuantiti dadah berbahaya serta racun tersebut seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia [ekshibit P11] serta seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh. Milikan (possession) ke atas dadah berbahaya dan racun [40] Bagi membuktikan elemen milikan, 2 unsur utama yang perlu dibuktikan ialah elemen fizikal iaitu milikan yang merujuk kepada jagaan dan kawalan fizikal ke atas dadah berbahaya serta racun tersebut serta elemen mental iaitu pengetahuan. [41] Di dalam kes Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] 22 MLJ 237, Hakim Thomson telah menjelaskan tentang kedua-dua unsur tersebut pada muka surat 239 seperti berikut: “A movable thing is said to be in possession of a person when he is situated with respect to it that he has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need. To put it otherwise, there is a physical element and mental element which must both be present before possession is made out.” S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [42] Berpandukan kepada nas yang dinyatakan di atas, adalah menjadi suatu prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa bagi membuktikan seseorang itu mempunyai “milikan”, perlulah dibuktikan melalui keterangan bahawa seseorang itu mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut dan bebas berurusan atau mengendalikan barang tersebut sepenuhnya tanpa penglibatan orang lain (power of disposal to the exclusion of others) dan mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut. [43] Mahkamah ini mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai milikan (kawalan atau jagaan serta pengetahuan) ke atas dadah berbahaya dan racun yang dijumpai dan dirampas daripada dalam beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ [ekshibit P21] yang dijumpai di atas kotak tempat letak tangan (armrest) di bahagian tengah antara tempat duduk pemandu dan penumpang hadapan dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut, yang menjadi subjek kepada Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4 berdasarkan alasan- alasan yang berikut: a) SP3 telah mengetuai pasukan serbuan ke Lokasi Serbuan adalah berdasarkan mendapat maklumat jabatan tentang aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang dijalankan oleh seorang lelaki cina dengan menggunakan Kereta Peugeot di kawasan Jalan Dagang SD2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya; b) Setelah lebih kurang 15 minit pemerhatian di Lokasi Serbuan, barulah SP3 nampak kehadiran Kereta Peugeot tersebut dan Tertuduh yang telah keluar bersama dengan SP5 menuju ke Restoran 33 tanpa membawa apa-apa barang di tangan; S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 c) Beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ hanya dijumpai dari dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut setelah Tertuduh dan SP5 dibawa keluar dari Restoran 33; d) Keberadaan Tertuduh dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut yang baru sampai dan parkir di hadapan Restoran 33, memasuki Restoran 33 tersebut dan dibawa keluar semula menuju ke Kereta Peugeot tidak dapat menyakinkan Mahkamah ini untuk membuat inferens bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan ke atas kandungan beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ tersebut; e) Tiada mana-mana dari telefon bimbit yang dirampas daripada Tertuduh; f) Timbul keraguan apabila tiada mana-mana dompet atau seumpamanya yang dirampas daripada badan Tertuduh yang lazim dibawa oleh seseorang menuju ke sebuah restoran tetapi sebaliknya kad pengenalan Tertuduh dijumpai dalam beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ bersama-sama dengan bahan dadah dan racun di dalamnya; g) Kaitan antara Tertuduh dengan bahan dadah atau racun yang terkandung dalam beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ tersebut adalah kerana dia yang diperhatikan memandu masuk Kereta Peugeot tersebut ke dalam kotak parkir di hadapan Restoran 33; S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 h) Kereta Peugeot tersebut bukanlah milik Tertuduh dan malahan SP5 juga mengakui pernah menggunakan dan memandunya; i) SP4 yang mengakui memiliki Kereta Peugeot tersebut tidak dapat mengesahkan siapa yang memandu kenderaannya selepas beliau ditangkap yang mana dikatakan digunakan oleh seorang ‘kawan’; j) Selepas tangkapan, pihak polis telah membawa Tertuduh ke Hotel Silka, Cheras yang mana terdapat unit yang disewa ke atas nama SP5 yang menunjukkan kemungkinan penglibatan SP5 dalam pengedaran dadah sebenar; k) Malahan SP5 dalam pemeriksaan balas mengakui telah mendaftar masuk di Hotel Silka tersebut untuk tempoh daripada 16.11.2020 hingga 18.11.2020. Menurut SP5 lagi, beliau pernah dijatuhkan hukuman oleh Mahkamah berkaitan kes dadah l) SP5 juga bersetuju dengan cadangan peguambela bahawa beliau pernah dijatuhkan hukuman berkaitan dengan kes dadah. SP5 juga ditahan bersama-sama dengan Tertuduh semasa serbuan tersebut tetapi tidak dituduh di mahkamah; m) Tiada apa-apa keterangan yang menunjukkan Tertuduh membuka, membawa, memeriksa dan memegang beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ tersebut. S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Pengedaran (trafficking) dadah berbahaya Methamphetamine [44] Memandangkan pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan sepenuhnya unsur milikan yang merupakan elemen penting dan utama bagi pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya, maka kesalahan pengedaran (trafficking) seperti mana tafsiran di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952 juga tidak dapat dibuktikan. [45] Begitu juga dengan anggapan statutori pengedaran (trafficking) di bawah seksyen 37(da)(xvi) ADB tidak terpakai dalam kes ini kerana kegagalan pihak pendakwaan membuktikan elemen pemilikan Tertuduh yang meliputi aspek kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah Methamphetamine tersebut. Keputusan di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [46] Setelah meneliti dan membuat penilaian maksimum (maximum evaluation) ke atas keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan berbanding dengan elemen-elemen pertuduhan kesalahan yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini telah merumuskan pada akhir kes pendakwaan ini bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan sepenuhnya elemen-elemen kesalahan bagi Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4 tersebut. [47] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini memutuskan berdasarkan alasan-alasan dan dapatan Mahkamah ini seperti mana dinyatakan di atas dan dengan mengguna pakai test/ujian untuk membuktikan kes prima facie seperti mana dijelaskan di dalam kes PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar (supra), Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N FkAnMD7K0kmOnMmxOgGR/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-33-203-04/2021

PEMPETISYEN AU YONG KIN CHOY RESPONDEN CHOW AYI LIAN

Family law - Division of Properties - Whether properties amounted to matrimonial assets - Determination of equitable division of matrimonial assets - Contribution by each party towards the Properties - Whether Wife entitled to claim rentals from Husband for his occupancy in the matrimonial home - Whether Wife entitled to claim compensation for furniture allegedly stolen by Husband - Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976, section 76Evidence - Children called as witnesses to corroborate their mother - Whether Credible - Whether biased - Witnesses statements filed mirrored each other - Whether number of corroborative witnesses strengthened the mother's narrative - Evidence Act 1950, section 134

14/01/2024

YA Puan Evrol Mariette Peters

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f79954a8-fcbb-4b8a-b194-1140cf31b3de&Inline=true

WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA DIVORCE PETITION NO: WA-33-203-04/2021 Dalam perkara seksyen-seksyen 53 dan 54(1)(b) Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 BETWEEN AU YONG KIN CHOY …PETITIONER AND CHOW AYI LIAN …RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 14/01/2024 17:08:33 WA-33-203-04/2021 Kand. 58 S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Introduction [1] This was a divorce petition filed by the Petitioner husband who had sought, among other things, the dissolution of the marriage and an equal division of four properties purchased during the marriage. In response, the Respondent wife filed a cross-petition. Although she had not contested the divorce itself, she claimed for three of the properties to be declared hers solely, sought the recovery of rentals, and claimed compensation for the alleged theft of furniture by the Petitioner. The factual background [2] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively, “the Parties”), aged 62 and 58 respectively at the time of the hearing, registered their marriage in December 1992. There are two children of the marriage, aged 28 and 25 years (“the Children”) at the time of the hearing. [3] The marriage deteriorated over time and in April 2021, the Petitioner filed a divorce petition (“the Divorce Petition”) and the Respondent responded and cross-petitioned in May 2021 (“the Cross-Petition”). The Issues [4] The primary contention revolved around the division of four properties, as asserted by the Petitioner, contrary to the Respondent’s stance, who sought a declaration deeming three of such properties as non- matrimonial assets. [5] The subsequent issues arose regarding the Respondent’s claims were as follows: firstly, the entitlement to rental income purportedly collected S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 by the Petitioner with regard to one of the properties; secondly, the legitimacy of the Respondent’s claim for rent from the Petitioner due to his occupancy in one of the properties; and finally, the validity of the Respondent’s assertion to claim compensation for furniture allegedly pilfered by the Petitioner. [6] The Divorce Petition was allowed, whilst the Cross-Petition was dismissed for the following reasons. Contentions, evaluation, and findings Whether properties were matrimonial assets and should be divided equally [7] The properties in question were as follows: a) A property at Taman Esplanade Bukit Jalil (“Property No. 11”); b) A property at Taman Esplanade, Bukit Jalil (“Property No. 91”); c) A three-story shop lot at One Puchong Business Park, Off Jalan Puchong, (“the Puchong Property”); d) A condominium at the Sky Park Residence (“the Sky Park Property”); (collectively “the four Properties”). S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 [8] At the time of the hearing of the Divorce Petition and Cross-Petition, the Petitioner was residing at Property No. 11, whilst the Respondent occupied the Sky Park Property. [9] The task of dividing matrimonial assets is prescribed by section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act”), which reads: Section 76 – Power of court to order division of matrimonial assets (1) The court shall have power, when granting a decree of divorce or judicial separation, to order the division between the parties of any assets acquired by them during the marriage or the sale of any such assets and the division between the parties of the proceeds of sale. (2) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) the court shall have regard to- (a) the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards the acquiring of the assets or payment of expenses for the benefit of the family; (aa) the extent of the contributions made by the other party who did not acquire the assets to the welfare of the family by looking after the home or caring for the family; (b) any debts owing by either party which were contracted for their joint benefit; (c) the needs of the minor children, if any, of the marriage; (d) the duration of the marriage, and subject to those considerations, the court shall incline towards equality of division. … S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 (5) For the purposes of this section, references to assets acquired during a marriage include assets owned before the marriage by one party which have been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by their joint efforts. [Emphasis added] [10] Property No. 11 was registered in both names of the Parties, whilst the remaining three (“the three Properties”) were registered solely in the Respondent ’s name . [11] The Respondent asserted that only Property No. 11 should be considered a matrimonial asset, contending that the three Properties belonged solely to her. The Respondent sought a declaration from this Court to affirm her position. [12] In my view, the classification of assets as matrimonial cannot solely be determined by registered ownership. Drawing insight from the pertinent case of Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin [1997] 1 MLJ 109, Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) provided a definition of ‘matrimonial assets’. In that case, he outlined the concept beyond mere ownership, emphasising factors that contribute to the marital estate. The following passage from the case serves as a guiding principle in understanding the broader scope of matrimonial assets: The Act does not define what matrimonial assets are. We think that during the subsistence of a marriage the expression refers to the matrimonial home and everything which is put into it by either spouse with the intention that their home and chattels should be a continuing resource for the spouses and their children to be used jointly and severally for the benefit of the family as a whole. It matters not in this context whether the asset is acquired solely by the one party or the other or by their joint efforts. Whilst the marriage S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 subsists these assets are matrimonial assets. Such assets could be capital assets. The earning power of each spouse is also an asset. [Emphasis added] [13] It was undisputed that all four Properties were acquired during the course of the marriage, which was registered in 1992, and endured for at least 29 years before the Divorce Petition was filed in April 2021. Given these undisputed facts, it was my view that all four Properties should be deemed matrimonial assets. Consequently, the Respondent was not entitled to a declaration suggesting otherwise. The pivotal issue at hand, therefore, revolved around the equitable division of the four Properties, as dictated by section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act. [14] The Petitioner prayed for an equal division of all four Properties, whereas the Respondent contended that only Property No. 11 should be subject to an equal division. Her argument rested on the assertion that, except for Property No. 11, the remaining three Properties belonged solely to her, acquired through her sole efforts. The Respondent maintained that the Petit ioner failed to substantiate any form of contribution towards these three Properties. [15] Despite the Respondent’s sole name registered on the three Properties, the Petit ioner had disputed such acquisit ion, asserting that all four Properties were acquired jointly. The crux of the matter, therefore, centered on the contributions S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 made by each party towards the acquisit ion and maintenance of the three Properties. [16] In my view, it was imperative to consider the contributions of both Parties, whether monetary or otherwise, irrespective of three Properties being registered solely in the Respondent’s name. The Court must also take into account joint debts incurred for mutual benefit, in addition to the duration of the marriage. [17] I agreed with the Petit ioner that all four Properties should be divided equally between the Parties, for the following reasons. [18] Firstly, the Respondent’s claim of sole ownership over the three Properties was substantiated solely by their registration in her name. She had failed to provide evidence of her contributions to the purchase or establish her financial capacity to have acquired them, relying solely on her oral statements in Court. [19] She had failed to adduce any evidence regarding her income and savings, relying solely on verbal assertions without supporting documentation. There existed a notable absence of any written proof concerning her earning potential, savings, or investment activities throughout the duration of the marriage. [20] Contrastingly, the Petitioner had adduced evidence of his earning capacity and contended that all four Properties were acquired jointly, despite three being solely registered in the Respondent’s name. He explained that this arrangement was a strategic decision S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 due to the higher risks associated with his job. In my view, this explanation held merit, as the decision to register matrimonial assets in one party’s name is typically a matter of mutual choice between parties in a marriage. [21] The Petitioner emphasised the significant financial contributions he had made towards the Children’s education, family vacations, and various household expenses. In response, the Respondent disputed these claims, pointing out the lack of receipts to substantiate the Petitioner's alleged expenditures. [22] I was unable to agree with the Respondent’s standpoint, emphasising the fundamental principle that in the sacred union of matrimony, financial responsibilities are commonly shared, particularly when both spouses are gainfully employed. The commitment to the well-being and prosperity of the household and the familial unit is a shared duty, evident through various means. In cases where both parties are actively earning incomes, it is inevitable that each will allocate their respective earnings towards the collective improvement of their significant other and the entire family. [23] It was crucial to recognise that within the intimate confines of familial relationships, meticulous bookkeeping practices, commonplace in other contexts, become a challenging issue. In this context, the insightful analysis presented by Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal case of Sivanes Rajaratnam v Usha Rani Subramaniam [2002] 1 MLRA 178, sheds light on the complexities involved in meticulously documenting all household and S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 familial expenditures within the intricate tapestry of a marriage. His Lordship explained the challenges in the following passages: From the authorities referred to us by both learned counsel and from my research, as far as I can ascertain, I am unable to find any decided case in Malaysia and Singapore to support an accounting of all the assets acquired or improved during the marriage and the income thereof and the determination of who had benefitted more or less and awarding a shortfall to the party who is found to have benefitted less. All the cases simply talk about the "division" of the matrimonial assets, which necessarily means the existing assets at the time of the divorce. Of course, the question of the size and nature of each spouse's contribution and who has enjoyed the property to the exclusion of the other (for example, as in this case, where only one party lived at the Crescent Court Apartment) and the reasons why, are relevant in determining the portion that each spouse should get, but not, in my view, for the purpose of calculating either spouse's share of past income. This view, in my opinion, is consistent with the wording and spirit of s. 76. That section talks of "division" of assets acquired during the marriage and provides the factors that should be taken into account when making the division. Besides (I am speaking generally here) in a marriage, both spouses share everything, both contribute towards the home and family in one way or another, to a bigger or smaller extent. Where both spouses work and earn income, each of them inevitably spends his or her own income for the family. Similarly, where there is income from an asset purchased during the subsistence of the marriage, say rent, even though it may be paid into the account of one spouse, eventually it will go to the family, may be all and may be part of it. No one keeps an account, indeed no one should, as a marriage is not a business venture. So, if and when the marriage breaks up, it is unreasonable that the court should undertake an accounting of their income and expenditure during the period the marriage subsists. The function of the court is to make a fair and equitable division of the matrimonial assets that exist at the time of the divorce, taking into account the factors provided by s. 76. [Emphasis added] S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 [24] Therefore, it was only fair and sensible to refrain from imposing excessive expectations on spouses to meticulously document and justify every expense incurred in their efforts to support and assist each other within the sacred bonds of matrimony. Demanding a meticulous account of how matrimonial funds are allocated, especially during times of financial strain or when facing monetary challenges, would be both impractical and burdensome. [25] The Petitioner further asserted that his contributions went beyond financial support incorporating non-monetary aspects like caring for the Children. [26] Based on the Petitioner's testimony, it was not unfounded to believe that he played an equal role in contributing to all four Properties, both in monetary and non-monetary terms, as he had asserted. This aligns with the overarching principle that matrimonial assets should typically be divided equally. [27] In her attempt to counter the Petitioner’s claims regarding his contributions towards the matrimonial assets, the Respondent, lacking documentary evidence to establish her sole contribution towards the three Properties, called upon the Children, their son (RW 2) and daughter (RW 3) to testify on her behalf. [28] At this pivotal juncture, it was crucial to recognise that, given the scarcity of documentary evidence adduced during this hearing, primary reliance was placed on the oral testimony provided by the Parties. Consequently, I felt S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 compelled to meticulously observe and consider the demeanour and conduct exhibited by witnesses. [29] It is trite law that while adhering to the prescribed standard of proof mandated by law, a trier of fact must also engage in a judicial appreciation of the evidence adduced to render a decision in accordance with the law. A decision made without such careful assessment would be subject to correction on appeal. The importance of this principle cannot be overstated, underscoring the necessity of thoroughly evaluating and understanding the evidence to reach an informed and equitable decision. [30] The trier of fact bears the responsibility of assessing the credibility, relevance, and weight of the evidence adduced by both Parties before arriving at a conclusion. Failure to conduct a proper judicial appreciation undermines the integrity of the decision-making process and may lead to erroneous judgments. By underscoring the need for a judicial appreciation of the evidence, this principle acts as a safeguard, ensuring fairness and justice in legal proceedings, and facilitating a more reliable and accurate resolution of the issues at hand. [31] 'Judicial appreciation is concerned with the process of evaluating evidence for the purpose of discovering where the truth lies in a particular case. It includes, but is not limited to, identifying the nature and quality of the evidence, assigning such weight to it as the trier of fact deems appropriate, testing the credibility of oral evidence against contemporaneous documents as well as the probabilities of the case, and assessing the demeanour of witnesses': per Gopal Sri Ram JCA S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 (as he then was) in Boonsom Boonyanit v. Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd [1997] 2 MLJ 62; [1997] 3 CLJ 17. [32] Credibility concerns the opportunities for the power of observation of the witness, his accuracy for recollection, and capacity to explain what he remembers: Kwang Boon Keong Peter v. PP [1998] 2 SLR 211. It embraces not only the concept of his truthfulness, that is, whether the evidence of the witness is to be believed, but also the objective reliability of the witness, that is, his ability to observe or remember facts and events about which the witness is giving evidence. [33] Both RW 2 and RW 3 testified that they had not witnessed the Petitioner contributing towards the family expenses or spending quality time with them. According to their accounts, it was the Respondent who had primarily cared for them. Both RW 2 and RW 3 provided detailed descriptions of conflicts between the Petitioner and Respondent, giving the Petitioner no acknowledgment whatsoever as a father. [34] Upon a comprehensive analysis of the testimonies of both RW 2 and RW 3, in conjunction with all other evidence, I deemed their reliability questionable. Consequently, I was unable to accept their testimony for the following reasons. [35] Firstly, the evidence of both RW 2 and RW 3 were predominantly based on information relayed to them by the Respondent, rather than personal knowledge. This became evident during cross-examination when, despite insisting that the Respondent owned the three Properties, they S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 qualif ied their assertion with the phrase ‘to my knowledge ’. This indicated a lack of awareness as ‘to my knowledge’ differs significantly from ‘personal knowledge’. [36] "Personal knowledge" underscores information acquired through an individual’s direct personal experience or involvement. In contrast, "to my knowledge" implies that the person’s awareness of the situation might be rooted in another person’s direct personal experience or involvement. [37] Furthermore, it became evident that both RW2 and RW 3 had no insight into the Petit ioner ’s f inancial contributions, as they were not privy to his financial affairs. Consequently, they could not verify which parent had contributed to the Properties, household expenses, education, and holidays. [38] The testimonies of both RW 2 and RW 3 were also contradictory. Despite their insistence that the Petit ioner had not spent any time with them nor taken them on holidays, the undisputed photograph ic evidence contradicted these claims. [39] Furthermore, I observed that both RW 2 and RW 3 displayed an excessively crit ical stance towards the Petit ioner, going to great lengths in their testimonies to portray him as a negligent parent. While recognising that the Children may have experienced estrangement from the Petit ioner, their testimony, characterised by such extreme crit icism, S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 strengthened my view that they lacked credibil ity , and that their evidence should be approached with caution. [40] Additionally, both RW 2 and RW 3 demonstrated a tendency to exaggerate. RW 2 had even compiled a list of items purportedly stolen by the Petitioner from the Respondent, without actual knowledge of the original purchasers. RW 3, on the other hand, recounted a disagreement between the Petit ioner and Respondent, describing it in her witness statement as ‘murder ’ ! [41] I found the allegations of both RW 2 and RW 3 to be implausible and superfluous, given the absence of any imperative to delve into the minutiae of every dispute between the Petit ioner and Respondent. It was evident that both RW 2 and RW 3 had chosen to testify with the intent of disparaging the Petit ioner while elevating the Respondent, an undertaking devoid of relevance to the core matters concerning the division of the Properties and the merits of the Respondent’s claims . [42] Upon scrutiny of their witness statements , a notable similarity emerged, raising concerns about the authenticity of their testimonies. Both statements appeared nearly identical, except for the language difference, with RW 2's statement filed in Bahasa Malaysia and RW 3's in English. It was essential to highlight these aspects, indicating that the statements were a copy-and-paste job, albeit in different languages, suggesting a repetition of each other's assertions. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 This was illustrated by the following examples taken in verbatim from their witness statements: No RW 2 RW 3 6 Mengapa encik berpindah keluar rumah Responden tersebut? Saya tidak berpindah kerana kesemua barang barang keperluan saya masih berada di rumah tersebut, saya cuma memilih menemani Responden iaitu ibu saya dan juga adik saya demi keselamatan utama mereka. Selain itu saya juga tidak puas hati dengan tingkahlaku Pempetisyen yang hanya mementingkan diri sendiri serta pemalas tanpa menunaikan tanggungjawab beliau sebagai seorang ayah. Saya berasa tidak selamat lagi tinggal di rumah Responden dan ingin memeriksa situasi tersebut. Saya hanya memainkan peranan dan tanggungjawab berat saya sebagai seorang anak serta abang untuk memastikan keselamatan, kesejateraan hidup mereka Why did you move out of the Respondent’s house? I did not move out of the Respondent's house because all my belongings are still in the house. Until now, I have never returned to the said Respondent's house even though my books, certificates, and necessities etc. are still there. I know that if I go back, the Petitioner will chase and beat me and my mother as he used to do when I stayed at the said Respondent's house during my university semester break. For the sake of the Respondent's safety, which is my mother, I chose to stay close to my mother, besides that I am also not satisfied with the behavior of the Petitioner who is not only selfish but lazy, without fulfilling his responsibilities as a father. 7 Mengapa encik risau dengan keselamatan Responden Saya kerap melihat ibu saya, Responden, dipukul dan diugut oleh Pempetisyen. Pempetisyen pernah Why are you worried about the Respondent's safety? I often saw my mother, the Respondent re Respondent, being beaten and threatened by the S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 beberapa kali mengugut Responden dengan pisau cina di depan mata saya. Saya juga pernah melihat ibu saya dipukul oleh Pempetisyen. Saya juga sentiasa melihat Pempetisyen mengejar ibu saya di rumah dari tingkat bawah hingga atas dan sebaliknya dengan memegang penyapu. Pengalaman yang paling dahsyat adalah pempetisyen melontar kerusi besi atas kepala ibu saya dari belakangnya, tapi disekatkan and diselamatkan oleh adik saya. Selain itu, Pempetisyen sering bertutur secara kasar terhadap Responden dan sering marah serta menjerit terhadap Responden. Keadaan ini sering berlaku menjadikan pengutamaan emosi and stress terhadap ahli keluarganya Petitioner. The Petitioner has threatened the Respondent several times with a meat knife in front of my own eyes. I also witnessed the Petitioner attacked the Respondent from behind by throwing an iron chair on her head without her noticing. Before that, the Petitioner was chasing the Respondent from the third floor to the second floor. Then he stopped chasing when he reached the second floor, and pretended to be calm. The Respondent stopped running and walked down the stairs to the ground floor towards the kitchen. I, who was always watching the Petitioner from behind to protect the Respondent from being attacked, saw the Petitioner suddenly pick up the iron chair beside the stairs and ran towards the Respondent and threw the iron chair towards the back of the Respondent's head. 9 Siapa pemilik rumah Responden tersebut? Setahu saya, Responden merupakan pemilik rumah tersebut. Who is the owner of the said Respondent’s house? To my knowledge, the Respondent is the owner of the house. 10 Adakah encik tahu Pempetisyen menyumbang apa-apa kepada rumah Responden tersebut? Dia hanya membeli sebuah televisyen sahaja Did the Petitioner contribute anything to the said Respondent’s house? He only bought a television. This is because he is the only person who S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 watches television every day with loud volume until late night. 11. Mengapa encik kata Pempetisyen tidak menunaikan tanggungjawab sebagai seorang ayah? Walaupun Pempetisyen mempunyai pekerja syarikat sendiri, saya tidak pernah melihat dia menyumbang pendapatan beliau kepada kami adik beradik tidak kira dari segi perbelanjaan harian dan pendidikan melainkan yuran university saya, itupun hanya separuh sahaja. Dia tidak pernah menyumbang kepada pembelanjaran pendidikan sejak sekolah rendah, menengah hingga kolej. Beliau tidak pernah membeli apa-apa kepada saya. Semua perbelanjaan adalah dibuat oleh ibu saya, Responden. Pempetisyen juga tidak pernah ambil berat akan keadaan keluarga, pekerjaan karir serta pendidikan saya Why did you say the Petitioner did not fulfill his responsibilities as a father? I have never seen him contribute his earnings to us regardless of daily expenses and education. He never bought me anything. All expenses were incurred by my mother, the Respondent. The Petitioner never bother about our family situation and my education. The most important thing to him is that when my brother and I get good results from exams, he will show it to his family, that is, his sister, his mother and friends. But when it comes to paying fees, buying computers, textbooks, school clothes, food money and so on, he just doesn't care and ask me to get from the Respondent even for small amount like rm5. [43] It was evident that both RW 2 and RW 3 had collaborated in crafting their witness statements, seemingly aiming to persuade the Court of the veracity of their testimony in support of the Respondent. However, given the reasons I outlined above, I remained unconvinced of their narratives. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 [44] When evaluating the demeanour of both RW 2 and RW 3, I found guidance in the case of Ch'ng Kheng Phong v Chung Keng Huat & Ors [2011] 8 MLJ 32. In this case, Chew Soo Ho JC provided valuable insight in the following passage: I have also observed the demeanour of DW2 when he gave evidence. More than often, he took time to answer questions posed, evasive and at time gave no answer. Questions had also sometimes to be explained several times before he could answer them. He does not appear to be a truthful witness. From the whole evidence of DW2 coupled with numerous material inconsistencies and his demeanour, I find that DW2 is not a credible and reliable witness but a witness who has an axe to grind as he was prepared to lie and gave conflicting evidence. It is most unsafe to rely on evidence that is full of inconsistencies and uncertainties. The defence had failed to advance any reasonable explanation nor lead any evidence to clear all lingering doubts and all the inconsistencies which remained at the end of the trial. Therefore, this court finds that no weight ought to be accorded to DW2's evidence and his evidence that he had witnessed the deceased affixing his signature on the second will which this court finds grave doubt is consequently rejected on a balance of probabilities upon positive finding of facts above. [Emphasis added] [45] In fact, I took a dim view of the Respondent’s actions in summoning her children, RW2 and RW 3 to testify with the aim of supporting her narrative and undermining the credibil ity of the Petit ioner. It was essential to recognise that the mere quantity of witnesses does not necessarily translate to the quality of evidence adduced. The presence of two witnesses attempting to corroborate the Respondent’s account did not automatically bolster her S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 19 case, as highlighted in section 134 of the Evidence Act 1950 (“Evidence Act”) , which states: Section 134 – Number of witnesses No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. [46] I drew guidance from the Federal Court in Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1983] CLJ Rep 101, where it was stated by Eusoffe Abdoolcader FJ: On the number of witnesses called to support the defence of alibi, we pause to observe 'testes ponderantur, non numerantur' (witnesses are weighed, not numbered or counted), that is, in case of a conflict of evidence, the truth is to be sought by weighing the credibility of the respective witnesses, not by the mere numerical preponderance on one side or the other - a principle ossified and reflected in the provisions of s. 134 of the Evidence Act. [Emphasis added] [47] Both RW 2 and RW 3, while understandable in their inclination to support the Respondent as the custodial parent, had failed to provide valuable assistance to this Court during these proceedings. Their testimony was marred by bias, partiality, and a lack of credibility. [48] Equally lacking in credibility was the Respondent herself. Despite her insistence that the three Properties belonged to her, she adduced no evidence to substantiate this claim. A careful review of the notes of proceedings revealed her inability to challenge the Petitioner’s evidence with any proof. The only evidence she had adduced was a S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 handwritten note, allegedly detailing the monies owed to her by the Petitioner. [49] I found it untenable to accept this note as evidence for several reasons. Firstly, the Respondent had not pleaded any specific amounts owed by the Petitioner. Secondly, the note was marked by ambiguity and vagueness, lacking essential details such as the dates of purported loans, loan amounts, repayment terms, and the circumstances surrounding the creation of such note. [50] The Respondent’s lack of transparency extended to two properties in the United Kingdom (UK). Despite having purchased the first property with RW 3 in 2017, followed by its sale and the subsequent acquisition of a second property in 2021, the Respondent failed to disclose these facts. Documents titled 'Search For & Property Information' from gov.uk, adduced by the Petitioner, provided evidence supporting these transactions. [51] Counsel for the Respondent, seemingly unaware of these UK property acquisitions, raised an objection to marking of the 'Search For & Property Information' documents as exhibits, claiming ‘ambush’. Instead, he insisted on maintaining them as ID. In response, the Petitioner’s Counsel argued that the Petitioner had only recently uncovered information about these property purchases, asserting that the element of surprise was, in fact, on his side. The status of the documents, however, remained ID. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 [52] In considering this objection, I reflected on the implications of designating a document as ID, guided by the case of Jaafar bin Shaari & Anor (Suing as administrators of the estate of Shofiah bte Ahmad, deceased) v. Tan Lip Eng & Anor [1997] 4 CLJ 509; [1997] 3 MLJ 693, where Gopal Sri Ram JCA explained: Thirdly such documents therein do not form automatically a part of the evidence of the case in question ipso facto, but any of such documents does become part of such evidence if it is read or referred to by either of the parties, wholly or partly, at length or in a briefest of mention, either of examination of any witness, in submission at any stage or even on any unilateral drawing of court's attention to if by either of the parties at any time before the conclusion of the case... [Emphasis added]. [53] Although the 'Search For & Property Information' documents were marked as ID, Counsel for the Petitioner proceeded to cross-examine both the Respondent and RW 3 regarding the UK properties. There was no objection to the cross-examination. Notably, both Respondent and RW 3 affirmed the accuracy of the contents of the 'Search For & Property Information' documents, acknowledging the purchase and sale of the initial UK property and the subsequent acquisition of the second one. [54] At this juncture, it was paramount to underscore the established procedure when dealing with ID documents. As these documents were not classified as Part A or Part B under Order 34 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("Rules of Court"), the party tendering the ID document must ensure its alignment with at least one of the exceptions to the rule S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 against hearsay. Importantly, documents marked as ID are not automatically deemed inadmissible but are subject to the full force of the Evidence Act. [55] This procedural aspect aligns with the elucidation provided by Ramly Ali J (as he then was) in Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (Malaysia) Bhd v. Sim Lim Holdings Bhd & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 474: ...At that stage of the proceedings, all those documents have to be marked as "ID" first, but it does not stop the court from deciding on their admissibility at the end of the trial ie, during submissions stage. Section 73A(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 empowers the court to do so. The said subsection provides for the exercise of the power "at any stage of the proceedings, having regards to all the circumstance of the case". There is nothing to say that those documents cannot be admitted as evidence under s. 73A(2) just because they have only been marked as "ID"... [Emphasis added.] [56] In the present case, despite the absence of the maker of the documents, it was undisputed that these documents were printouts sourced from a publicly accessible website based in the UK. The inherent nature of these documents categorised them as business records, unequivocally falling under the provisions of sections 32(1)(b) and 73A of the Evidence Act, rendering them admissible as evidence. [57] Nevertheless, the issue regarding the properties in the UK, while not directly relevant to the Petitioner’s claim, served to reveal the Respondent’s lack of transparency. Concealing this information not only from the Court but also from her solicitor indicated a lack of honesty, prompting me to approach her evidence with circumspection. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 [58] Although the Petitioner had not asserted any interest in the UK property, as his pleadings were crafted before his awareness of its existence under the names of the Respondent and RW 3, I was compelled to take into account this circumstance. This factor had, in fact, contributed to my decision to order the equal distribution between the Parties of all four Properties. [59] The duration of the marriage, a factor stipulated in section 76(2)(d) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act , had also played a crucial role in my decision to divide the Properties equally. With the parties having been married for 29 years before the Divorce Petit ion was fi led , dividing the Properties equally between the Parties was, in my view, fair and reasonable. Whether Respondent was entitled to claim rentals from Puchong Property [60] The Respondent’s demand for half of the rentals from the Puchong Property was based on her contention that the Petitioner had purportedly collected and retained the proceeds for himself. Her pleadings indicated that the Petitioner owed her MYR58,100. I dismissed the Respondent’s claim based on the following reasons. [61] Primarily, the Respondent had explicitly directed the tenants of the Puchong Property not to remit the rentals to the Petitioner. Given that the tenants adhered to this instruction and did not the rentals to the Petitioner, the foundation for the Respondent’s claim for such rentals from the Petitioner was consequently lacking. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 [62] Secondly, the Petitioner clarified that the irregularity in rental income was attributed to the absence of consistent tenants for the Puchong Property. [63] Thirdly, amidst the Movement Control Order, the tenants sought a 30% reduction in rent, a request to which the Petitioner had acquiesced. [64] Fourthly, the Petitioner demonstrated that the rental income was utilised to service the bank loan for the Puchong Property, covering quit rent, maintenance charges, and repairs. Lastly, the Respondent's inconsistent claims regarding the amount owed raised doubts about the accuracy of her assertions, as she had pleaded MYR58,100 but subsequently claimed that the amount owing was MYR87,150. It was palpable that the Respondent was not even sure what amount had been collected, if at all. [65] I also had to consider the irrefutable fact that the Respondent had been consistently collecting rental income from Property No. 91 without providing any transparent record or accountability for the funds received. Hence to make a claim against the Petitioner for rentals that he had collected from the Puchong Property, if at all, was an affront to fairness and equity. Whether Respondent was entitled to claim rentals from the Petitioner for his occupancy in Property No. 11 [66] The Respondent's claim for rentals from the Petitioner himself for his occupancy in Property No. 11 was also dismissed for the following reasons. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 25 [67] Firstly, no demand for rentals was made by the Respondent against the Petitioner during his occupancy at Property No. 11. Secondly, the Respondent’s claim was inconsistent, where she had stated a monthly amount of MYR6,000 in her pleadings, but sought a monthly amount of MYR8,642.98 in her submissions. Thirdly, considering that Property No. 11 is part of matrimonial assets, it was transactional and avaricious of the Respondent to demand rental from the Petitioner for occupying a matrimonial property, especially when the Respondent herself occupied another matrimonial asset, namely the Sky Park Property, without a similar claim for rent from the Petitioner. [68] Last, but certainly not least, and of equal significance was the fact that all four Properties have been designated as matrimonial assets, entitling the Petitioner to occupy any of them to the same extent as the Respondent. As such, demanding rental from one spouse for inhabiting a property deemed matrimonial assets seems excessively calculated and transactional. Whether the Respondent was entitled to claim compensation for furniture allegedly stolen [69] Additionally, the Respondent asserted a claim of MYR 28,000, alleging that such was the value of furniture purportedly stolen by the Petitioner. However, the Respondent failed to provide any substantive evidence for this claim, relying solely on the testimony of RW 2, who merely echoed the Respondent's assertions in verbatim. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 26 [70] In detailing the purportedly stolen furniture items, the Respondent neglected to substantiate their existence or confirm her personal purchase with supporting receipts or purchase details. This situation compelled me to emphasise the principle that merely presenting a claim without substantiation falls short. To quote Lord Goddard in Bonham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] The 64 TLR 177 cited in Sum Kum v. Devaki Nair & Anor [1963] 1 LNS 131; [1964] 3 MLJ 74: It is not enough to write down the particulars and throw them at the head of Court, saying, "This is what I have lost; I ask you to give me damages. [Emphasis added.] [71] Both Parties contended that the onus of proving their respective claims rested on the other. However, given the Petitioner’s plea for an equal division of the Properties, in harmony with the Court's inclination, and the Respondent’s comprehensive assertions concerning the three Properties, including specific rental details and amounts attributed to the Petitioner for his occupancy at Property No. 11, it fell upon the Respondent to substantiate these claims on a balance of probabilities, as outlined in section 103 of the Evidence Act, which reads: Section 103 – Burden of proof as to particular fact 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. [Emphasis added] S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 27 [72] In my view, the Respondent had failed to meet the requisite threshold of proof for any of her assertions. On the contrary, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated to this Court that an equal division of the Properties was justifiable, aligning with the Court’s inclination toward such a distribution. Concluding remarks [73] The Respondent's attitude towards the marriage and her conduct during the trial led me to emphasise that although marriage is a contract, it must be distinguished from other commercial contracts, as highlighted by Abdul Malik Ishak J (as he then was) in the case of Wong Kim Foong v. Teau Ah Kau [1998] 1 CLJ 358, in the following passages: But a marriage contract is quite unlike a commercial contract and there are marked dissimilarities between the two. Of pertinence to note would be the following dissimilarities: (1) Special formalities are needed and must be fulfilled before a marriage vow is exchanged between the parties. (2) The law relating to capacity to marry is entirely different from that of, say, the sale of goods. (3) What are said to be void and voidable in a marriage can never be the same for other contracts. (4) A voidable marriage cannot be declared void ab initio by repudiation by one of the parties but it may be set aside by a decree of nullity pronounced by a divorce court. (5) A marriage once contracted cannot be discharged by agreement, frustration or breach. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 [74] While the term "contract" is often employed to characterise marriage, its implications extend far beyond the legal realm, encompassing social and emotional dimensions. The emotional, social, and cultural facets of marriage make it a unique institution within human societies. Consequently, the Respondent's monetary claims against the Petitioner prompted consideration of whether she truly comprehended the essence of marriage. [75] Upon meticulous examination, it was evident that the Respondent’s claims suffered from a glaring lack of essential and pertinent evidence. Without the necessary document substantiation, this Court was compelled to rely on oral testimonies. However, scrutiny revealed that the oral testimony of the Respondent and her witnesses, RW 2 and RW 3, lacked conviction, characterised by contradictions, ambiguity, and vagueness. The entirety of the Respondent’s argument hinged on the claim that the Petitioner had failed to furnish the necessary evidence to substantiate his claims. However, it was, in fact, the Respondent who fell short in providing the requisite evidence to substantiate her assertions regarding the matrimonial assets. [76] In contrast, the Petitioner, while not producing specific receipts, did adduce documentary evidence indicating his financial capacity to have contributed towards the acquisition and improvement of the Properties. His contention advocating for an equal division of all the Properties had also resonated with the Court’s predisposition, especially considering the extended duration of the marriage. S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 29 [77] In conclusion, drawing upon the aforementioned rationales and having undertaken a thorough examination and discerning evaluation of the comprehensive evidence before this Court, in conjunction with the submissions put forth by both Parties, the Petition was granted and the Cross-Petition dismissed with costs to the Petitioner in the amount of MYR20,000 (subject to allocatur) to be paid by the Respondent within 21 days from the date of this decision. [78] The decree nisi was made absolute immediately, and, it was ordered that within nine months from the date of this decision, the realisable value of all four Properties was to be divided equally. Each party was to receive their share of such value, either by selling the Properties altogether and dividing their proceeds, or by either party purchasing the other party’s 50% share of any of the Properties. Dated: 14 January 2024 SIGNED …………………………………………. (EVROL MARIETTE PETERS) Judge High Court, Kuala Lumpur S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-33-203-04/2021 14 January 2024 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Counsel: For the Petitioner – Malika Lee and Jayaletchumi Rajaretnam; Messrs Mallika & Lim For the Respondent – Lim Chi Chau; Messrs Lim Chi Chau & Co Cases referred to: ➢ Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (Malaysia) Bhd v. Sim Lim Holdings Bhd & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 474 ➢ Bonham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] The 64 TLR 177 ➢ Boonsom Boonyanit v. Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd [1997] 2 MLJ 62; [1997] 3 CLJ 17 ➢ Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin [1997] 1 MLJ 109 ➢ Ch'ng Kheng Phong v Chung Keng Huat & Ors [2011] 8 MLJ 32 ➢ Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1983] CLJ Rep 101 ➢ Jaafar bin Shaari & Anor (Suing as administrators of the estate of Shofiah bte Ahmad, deceased) v. Tan Lip Eng & Anor [1997] 4 CLJ 509; [1997] 3 MLJ 693 ➢ Kwang Boon Keong Peter v. PP [1998] 2 SLR 211 ➢ Sivanes Rajaratnam v Usha Rani Subramaniam [2002] 1 MLRA 178 ➢ Sum Kum v. Devaki Nair & Anor [1963] 1 LNS 131; [1964] 3 MLJ 74 ➢ Wong Kim Foong v. Teau Ah Kau [1998] 1 CLJ 358 Legislation referred to: ➢ Evidence Act 1950 – sections 32(1)(b), 73A, 103, 134 ➢ Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – section 76 ➢ Rules of Court 2012 – Order 34 rule 2 S/N qFSZ97v8ikuxlBFAzzGz3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-45-37-12/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LIM KOK KHENG

Perbicaraan jenayah - kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952, seksyen 12(2) ADB dan seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952;Di akhir kes pendakwaan Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie - Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan;Dadah dan racun yang dijumpai daripada dalam beg silang 'Mont Blanc' yang dijumpai di atas kotak tempat letak tangan (armrest) kereta Peugeot yang dipandu oleh Tertuduh semasa menuju ke parkir Restoran 33;Terdapat keraguan yang munasabah terhadap jagaan atau kawalan serta pengetahuan Tertuduh ke atas dadah dan racun tersebut;SP5 yang ditangkap bersama-sama dengan Tertuduh tidak dituduh- SP5 pernah dituduh dan dihukum di mahkamah berkaitan kes dadah- malahan SP5 pernah mengguna dan memandu kereta Peugeot tersebut;Pemilik kereta (SP4) tidak dapat mengesahkan siapa yang menggunakan kereta tersebut selepas beliau ditangkap;Terdapat keraguan apabila hanya kad pengenalan Tertuduh sahaja yang turut dijumpai bersama dadah dan racun tersebut dalam beg silang 'Mont Blanc' tanpa ada apa-apa barang peribadi Tertuduh yang lain seperti dompet dan telefon;Mahkamah amat berhati-hati dalam menilai keterangan dalam kes pendakwaan terutamanya ke atas tangkapan dan serbuan yang dibuat oleh polis berdasarkan maklumat (tip off).Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada 3 pertuduhan.

14/01/2024

YA Tuan Hasbullah bin Adam

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=22912375-4e49-4a8f-8462-5d9c82921bb6&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO. BA-45A-162-12/2021 & BA-45-37-12/2021 PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN LIM KOK KHENG [770704-14-5541] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Lim Kok Kheng (“Tertuduh”) telah dituduh di Mahkamah ini dengan 2 kes seperti berikut: (a) BA-45A-162-12/2021 – bagi 1 pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 243 gram [Pertuduhan 1] di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] (“ADB”); (b) BA-45-37-12/2021 – bagi 2 pertuduhan memiliki dadah berbahaya jenis 3,4-Methlynedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) masing-masing seberat 2.01 gram [Pertuduhan 2] 14/01/2024 14:01:56 BA-45-37-12/2021 Kand. 22 S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 dan 0.42 gram di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB [Pertuduhan 3] serta 1 lagi pertuduhan memiliki racun jenis Flubromazolam seberat 25.4 gram yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-bendzodiazepine [Pertuduhan 4], di bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 [Akta 366]. [2] Pertuduhan-pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh adalah seperti berikut: Pertuduhan 1 [ekshibit P4] “Bahawa kamu pada 18 November 2020 jam lebih kurang antara 8.45 hingga 9.45 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Dagang SD 2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah mengedar dadah berbahaya, iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 243 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan 2 [ekshibit P5] “Bahawa kamu pada 18 November 2020 jam lebih kurang antara 8.45 hingga 9.45 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Dagang SD 2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah memiliki dadah berbahaya, iaitu 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) seberat 2.01 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan 3 [ekshibit P6] “Bahawa kamu pada 18 November 2020 jam lebih kurang antara 8.45 hingga 9.45 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Dagang SD 2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah memiliki dadah berbahaya, iaitu 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) seberat 0.42 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan 4 [ekshibit P8] “Bahawa kamu pada 18 November 2020 jam lebih kurang antara 8.45 hingga 9.45 malam bertempat di tepi Jalan Dagang SD 2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, di dalam Daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam milikan kamu racun, iaitu Flubromazolam seberat 25.4 gram yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-bendzodiazepine dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 30(5) Akta yang sama.” S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [3] Pada 11.8.2023, Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh bagi pertuduhan-pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB dan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 30(3) Akta Racun 1952. Justeru, Mahkamah ini memerintahkan supaya Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri ke atas Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4 tersebut. [4] Namun begitu, Mahkamah ini merumuskan pada akhir kes pendakwaan ini bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan sepenuhnya elemen-elemen kesalahan bagi Pertuduhan 3 iaitu bagi kesalahan memiliki dadah berbahaya jenis 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) tersebut. Justeru, Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh bagi pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan memerintahkan supaya Tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri ke atas Pertuduhan 3 tersebut. Tertuduh telah mengaku salah ke atas Pertuduhan 3 tersebut yang mana telah disabitkan kesalahan serta dihukum dengan pemenjaraan 5 tahun dan denda RM10,000.00 (jika tidak bayar 3 bulan penjara). [5] Pihak pendakwaan telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini melalui 2 notis rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia masing-masing bertarikh 24.8.2023 berkaitan dengan keputusan melepas dan membebaskan Tertuduh daripada Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4. Alasan Penghakiman ini adalah berkaitan dengan notis- notis rayuan tersebut sahaja. S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Ringkasan Kes Pendakwaan [6] Perbicaraan kes ini telah bermula pada 12.6.2023 dan pihak pendakwaan telah menutup kes pendakwaan pada 16.6.2023 setelah memanggil seramai 5 orang saksi pendakwaan seperti berikut: SP1: Dr. Nur Nazihah binti Md Shahari (Ahli Kimia Narkotik); SP2: Insp. Nurul Hadi bin Haron Mansor (Jurufoto dan Pegawai Penyiasat); SP3: Insp. Darwis bin Aripin (Pegawai Serbuan); SP4: Chin Kek Hiong (Pemilik asal kereta); dan SP5: Chaw Hee Mun (Kawan Tertuduh di kedai makan). [7] Pada 18.11.2020 jam lebih kurang 5 petang, Insp. Darwis bin Aripin (SP3) telah memperoleh maklumat jabatan mengenai aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang dijalankan oleh seorang saspek lelaki cina dengan menggunakan sebuah kereta Peugeot berwarna putih No. W6341N di kawasan Jalan Dagang SD2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (“Lokasi Serbuan’). [8] Bertindak atas maklumat tersebut, SP3 telah mengadakan taklimat ringkas kepada pasukan serbuan yang terdiri daripada 3 pasukan serbuan pada 18.11.2020 jam lebih kurang 8 malam. [9] Pada jam lebih kurang 8.15 malam, pasukan serbuan telah berlepas daripada pejabat BSJN IPD Petaling Jaya dengan menaiki kereta pasukan yang tidak berlambang. Pasukan serbuan telah sampai di Lokasi Serbuan pada jam lebih kurang 8.45 malam dan membuat pemerhatian. Lebih kurang 15 minit kemudian, SP3 telah nampak sebuah kereta jenis S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Peugeot berwarna putih dengan nombor pendaftaran W6341N (“Kereta Peugeot”) telah berhenti dalam petak parkir berhadapan Restoran 33 dan seterusnya telah keluar seorang lelaki cina pemandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut (yang kemudiannya dicamkan sebagai Tertuduh) serta seorang perempuan cina iaitu penumpang hadapan Kereta Peugeot tersebut. Kedua-duanya telah menuju masuk ke dalam Restoran 33. [10] SP3 bersama dengan pasukan serbuan 1 dan 2 telah masuk ke dalam Restoran 33 tersebut dan memperkenalkan diri sebagai pegawai polis. Hasil pemeriksaan badan oleh SP3 ke atas Tertuduh telah menjumpai daripada dalam poket sebelah kiri hadapan seluar yang dipakai oleh Tertuduh dan seterusnya merampas- (a) 1 peket plastik lutsinar yang berisi 5 biji pil disyaki ekstasi [ekshibit P12(A)]; dan (b) 1 anak kunci berserta alat kawalan jauh kereta [ekshibit P20]. [11] Manakala hasil pemeriksaan badan ke atas seorang perempuan cina yang bersama dengan Tertuduh itu iaitu Chaw Hee Mun (SP5) tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. [12] Kemudiannya, SP3 bersama dengan anggota serbuan serta disaksikan oleh Tertuduh dan perempuan cina tersebut (SP5) telah menuju ke Kereta Peugeot yang diparkir di hadapan Restoran 33 tadi. Dengan menggunakan anak kunci dan alat kawalan jauh yang telah dirampas tadi, SP3 telah membuka pintu hadapan bahagian pemandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut. S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [13] Hasil pemeriksaan daripada dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut telah menjumpai 1 beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ [ekshibit P21] daripada atas kotak tempat letak tangan (armrest) di bahagian tengah antara tempat duduk pemandu dan penumpang hadapan, yang mengandungi 1 plastik warna hitam dengan tulisan ‘Thank You Terima Kasih’ [ekshibit P13(A)] yang dijumpai di dalamnya seperti berikut: (a) 16 peket plastik yang mengandungi bahan kristal jernih disyaki dadah Syabu [ekshibit P13(B1 – B16)]; (b) 16 keping foil aluminium yang berikat gelang getah berisi sejumlah 160 biji tablet berwarna oren disyaki pil Erimin 5 [ekshibit P13(C1 – C16)]; (c) 1 peket plastik lutsinar berisi 16 biji tablet disyaki pil Ekstasi [ekshibit P13(D)]; (d) 1 kad pengenalan Malaysia atas nama: Lim Kok Kheng [ekshibit P22]. [14] Semua barang rampasan daripada Lokasi Serbuan adalah seperti mana disenaraikan dalam Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P23]. SP3 juga telah membuat laporan polis berkenaan pemeriksaan dan tangkapan di Lokasi Serbuan tersebut seperti mana dalam Sri Damansara Report No. 6713/20 bertarikh 19.11.2020 [ekshibit P25]. [15] Semua barang rampasan barang kes kemudiannya telah diserahkan oleh SP3 kepada Pegawai Penyiasat iaitu Insp. Nurul Hadi bin Haron Mansor (SP2) pada 19.11.2020 jam lebih kurang 3.45 pagi di S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BSJND, IPD Petaling Jaya, seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P24]. [16] SP2 telah memasukkan barang-barang rampasan dadah ke dalam 2 sampul surat surat bermeterai PDRM (sampul-sampul surat bertanda ‘HM1’ dan ‘HM2’) dan telah dihantar kepada Ahli Kimia iaitu Dr. Nur Nazihah binti Md Shahari (SP1) untuk tujuan analisis seperti mana permintaan untuk pemeriksaan dalam borang Polis 31 [ekshibit P27]. SP1 telah mengeluarkan resit rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bagi mengesahkan penerimaan 2 sampul surat tersebut daripada SP2 pada 23.11.2020 jam 2.36 petang, seperti dinyatakan dalam Resit Rasmi [ekshibit P10]. [17] SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan menyediakan laporan analisis seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-22725 [ekshibit P11]. Hasil analisis oleh SP1 telah mendapati bahawa – (a) 1 peket plastik lutsinar yang berisi 5 biji tablet tersebut [ekshibit P12(A)] adalah didapati seperti berikut: (i) 1 biji tablet berwarna merah mengandungi 0.12 gram 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); (ii) 1 biji tablet berwarna merah jambu mengandungi 0.34 gram promethazine; (iii) 1 biji tablet berwarna hijau mengandungi 0.15 gram 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); dan S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (iv) 2 biji tablet berwarna biru mengandungi 0.15 gram 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); [4 biji tablet MDMA tersebut dengan jumlah berat 0.42 gram merupakan rampasan daripada dalam poket sebelah kiri hadapan seluar yang dipakai oleh Tertuduh yang menjadi subjek dalam Pertuduhan 3] (b) 1 beg plastik hitam [ekshibit P13(A)] adalah didapati di dalamnya seperti berikut: (i) Bahan kristal jernih daripada 16 peket plastik [ekshibit P13(B1 – B16) adalah mengandungi 243.0 gram methamphetamine; [Merupakan subjek bagi Pertuduhan 1] (ii) 160 biji tablet berwarna oren daripada 16 keping foil [ekshibit P13(C1 – C16] adalah mengandungi 25.4 gram flubromazolam; dan [Merupakan subjek bagi Pertuduhan 4] (iii) 16 biji tablet masing-masing berwarna merah, biru dan hijau daripada dalam peket plastik [ekshibit P13(D)] adalah mengandungi jumlah keseluruhan 2.01 gram 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). [Merupakan subjek bagi Pertuduhan 2] [18] Menurut SP1 lagi, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) dan methamphetamine adalah dadah berbahaya yang termasuk dalam S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Jadual Pertama ADB. Manakala Flubromazolam yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-benzodiazepine adalah racun yang termasuk dalam Jadual Pertama dan Ketiga (Bahan Psikotropik) Akta Racun 1952. Hujahan Pihak-Pihak Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan Pihak Pendakwaan [19] Pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan berkenaan elemen-elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan iaitu: (a) Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti yang tersenarai dalam ADB 1952. Manakala Flubromazolam pula yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-bendzodiazepine adalah racun yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama dan Ketiga (Bahan Psikotropik) Akta Racun 1952 seperti mana dalam pertuduhan; (b) Dadah dan racun tersebut berada dalam milikan (possession) Tertuduh; (c) Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah dan racun yang dirampas; dan (d) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar (trafficking) dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine bagi Pertuduhan 1. S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [20] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa elemen pertama berkenaan identiti dadah berbahaya dan racun tersebut telah berjaya dibuktikan melalui keterangan Ahli Kimia (SP1) yang melakukan analisis terhadap barang kes dadah dan racun tersebut. [21] SP1 juga turut mengesahkan bahawa jenis dadah yang dianalisis iaitu 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) dan Methamphetamine adalah dadah berbahaya yang termasuk dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. Manakala Flubromazolam yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-benzodiazepine adalah racun yang termasuk dalam Jadual Pertama dan Ketiga (Bahan Psikotropik) Akta Racun 1952. SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan telah membuat dapatannya seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-22725 bertarikh 5.12.2020 [ekshibit P11]. [22] Selanjutnya pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan (control and custody) terhadap barang kes dadah dan racun tersebut berdasarkan yang berikut: (a) Pegawai serbuan (SP3) mengesahkan bahawa dadah ditemui dalam Kereta Peugeot yang mana berdasarkan pemerhatian selama 15 minit dipandu oleh Tertuduh. Manakala Chaw Hee Mun (SP5) pula dilihat oleh SP3 sebagai penumpang hadapan; (b) Keterangan SP5 bahawa sepanjang perkenalannya dengan Tertuduh selama hampir 7 atau 8 bulan, beliau sering melihat Tertuduh yang memandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut; S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (c) Keterangan Chin Kek Thion (SP4) pula menyatakan bahawa beliau telah membeli Kereta Peugeot tersebut secara tunai tanpa ada perjanjian jual beli daripada seorang kawan (tidak diketahui nama) yang diperkenalkan oleh seorang kawan yang lain. SP4 sempat menggunakan kereta tersebut lebih kurang dalam sebulan. Menurut SP4 lagi, kali terakhir beliau menggunakan Kereta Peugeot tersebut adalah pada bulan Februari 2020 sebelum beliau ditangkap pada Mac 2020; (d) Dadah dan racun dalam Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4 adalah ditemui dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut dan dijumpai daripada dalam sebuah beg silang Mont Blanc [ekshibit P21) bersama dengan kad pengenalan Tertuduh [ekshibit P22]; dan (e) Menurut SP5 juga, sepanjang perkenalan beliau dengan Tertuduh, beliau sering melihat Tertuduh membawa beg Mont Blanc tersebut. [23] Mengenai elemen pengetahuan pula, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah dan racun tersebut melalui inferens terhadap barang kes yang ditemui itu daripada dalam beg Mont Blanc yang sering dilihat oleh SP5 dibawa oleh Tertuduh serta turut dijumpai dalam beg tersebut adalah kad pengenalan Tertuduh sendiri. [24] Mengenai elemen pengedaran (trafficking) pula, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai milikan (possession) terhadap barang kes yang dirampas. Oleh itu anggapan di bawah S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 seksyen 37(da) ADB adalah dihujahkan sebagai terpakai bagi membuktikan elemen pengedaran (trafficking). [25] Pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan bahawa rantaian keterangan barang kes dadah tersebut adalah tidak terputus daripada mula pemeriksaan dan penemuan oleh SP3 yang mana telah membuat penandaan sendiri dan menyediakan Borang Senarai Geledah bertarikh 18.11.2020 [ekshibit P23] dan seterusnya menyerahkan kepada Insp Nurul Hadi bin Haron selaku Pegawai Penyiasat (SP2) yang disahkan melalui Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes bertarikh 19.11.2020 [ekshibit P24]. [26] SP2 pula telah menghantar barang kes dadah dan racun tersebut yang telah dimasukkan ke dalam 2 sampul bertanda ‘HM1’ dan ‘HM2’ [ekshibit P12A dan ekshibit P13A] kepada Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis yang mana telah diserahkan oleh beliau pada 23.11.2020 kepada Ahli Kimia bernama Dr. Nur Nazihah binti Md Shahari (SP1) dan dikeluarkan resit rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bertarikh 23.11.2020 sebagai bukti penerimaan [ekshibit P10]. [27] Selepas analisis oleh Ahli Kimia (SP1) disempurnakan, SP2 telah mengambil dan menerima semula barang kes dadah tersebut pada 22.12.2020 dan berikutnya disimpan di setor barang kes serta didaftarkan dalam Buku Daftar Barang Kes [ekshibit P29]. [28] Oleh yang demikian, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan berdasarkan keterangan di atas rantaian keterangan barang kes adalah tidak terputus dan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah kredibel, konsisten dan saling menyokong antara satu sama lain. S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [29] Kesimpulannya, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan dengan membuat penilaian dan mempertimbangkan keterangan-keterangan yang ada secara keseluruhan, suatu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan berkenaan telah berjaya dibuktikan terhadap Tertuduh dan memohon Tertuduh dipanggil membela diri. Pihak Pembelaan [30] Secara ringkasnya, pihak pembelaan menghujahkan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh ke atas pertuduhan-pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut. [31] Pihak pembelaan menghujahkan sedemikian berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan yang berikut: (a) Elemen pengetahuan Tertuduh terhadap dadah-dadah yang dirampas telah gagal dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan; (b) Bahawa dadah tersebut adalah milik Chaw Hee Mun (SP5) yang telah ditangkap bersama-sama dengan Tertuduh tetapi tidak dituduh; (c) Selepas tangkapan, pihak polis telah membawa Tertuduh ke Hotel Silka, Cheras yang mana terdapat unit yang disewa ke atas nama SP5 yang menunjukkan kemungkinan penglibatan SP5 dalam pengedaran dadah sebenar; (d) Malahan SP5 dalam pemeriksaan balas mengakui telah mendaftar masuk di Hotel Silka tersebut untuk tempoh S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 daripada 16.11.2020 hingga 18.11.2020. Menurut SP5 lagi, beliau pernah dijatuhkan hukuman oleh Mahkamah berkaitan kes dadah; (e) Kaitan Tertuduh dengan dadah tersebut hanyalah berdasarkan bahawa Tertuduh yang memandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut. Akan tetapi SP5 juga mengakui pernah mengguna dan memandu Kereta Peugeot tersebut; (f) Timbul kecurigaan bagaimana kad pengenalan Tertuduh sahaja boleh berada dalam beg Mont Blanc yang berisi dadah tersebut sedangkan tiada barang-barang peribadi yang lain seperti dompet, lesen memandu atau telefon bimbit Tertuduh; (g) SP4 yang mengakui memiliki Kereta Peugeot tersebut tidak dapat mengesahkan siapa yang memandu kenderaannya selepas beliau ditangkap yang mana dikatakan digunakan oleh seorang ‘kawan’. Tugas Mahkamah Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [32] Tugas Mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah bagi mempertimbangkan dan seterusnya memutuskan sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie seperti mana yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. “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.” S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [33] Suatu kes prima facie dikatakan berjaya dibuktikan hanyalah apabila pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan yang kukuh bagi membuktikan setiap dan tiap-tiap intipati/elemen kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan yang mana sekiranya gagal dipatahkan akan membawa kepada sabitan, seperti mana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah: “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.” (Penekanan ditambah) [34] Prinsip-prinsip tugas mahkamah di akhir kes Pendakwaan telah diputuskan di dalam beberapa kes tersohor termasuklah PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 yang mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan: “[15] For the guidance of the courts below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by a trial court at the close of the prosecution’s case: (i) the close of the prosecution’s case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused; (ii) ask yourself the question: If I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is “Yes”, then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is “No” then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted....” (Penekanan ditambah) [35] Elemen-elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan adalah: (a) Subjek yang terlibat dalam Pertuduhan 1, 2 dan 4 adalah dadah berbahaya dan racun menurut jenis dan kuantiti seperti berikut: (i) 243 gram Methamphetamine; (ii) 2.01 gram 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); dan (iii) 25.4 gram Flubromazolam; (b) Tertuduh mempunyai pemilikan (jagaan atau kawalan dan pengetahuan) ke atas dadah berbahaya serta racun tersebut pada tempat, masa dan tarikh yang dipertuduhkan; dan S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 (c) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar dadah (trafficking) (bagi pertuduhan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine). Analisis dan Dapatan Mahkamah Identiti Dadah Berbahaya dan Racun [36] SP1 yang merupakan Ahli Kimia dari Jabatan Kimia Malaysia dalam keterangannya telah mengesahkan bahawa Methamphetamine dan 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine tersebut adalah merupakan dadah berbahaya yang disenaraikan di bawah Jadual Pertama ADB 1952. Manakala Flubromazolam pula yang secara strukturnya diterbitkan dari 1,4-bendzodiazepine adalah merupakan racun yang ditetapkan dalam Jadual Pertama dan Ketiga (Bahan Psikotropik) Akta Racun 1952. SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan telah membuat dapatannya seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-22725 [ekshibit P11]. [37] Tiada sebarang cabaran oleh peguambela terhadap identiti dadah yang telah diterima dan dianalisa oleh SP1. Tiada pemeriksaan balas ke atas SP1. [38] Di dalam kes Munusamy Vengadasalam v PP [1987] CLJ (Rep) 221, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “…the Court is entitled to accept the opinion of the expert of its face value, unless it is inherently incredible of the defence calls evidence in rebuttal by another expert to contradict the opinion. So long as some credible evidence S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 is given by the Chemist to support his opinion, there is no necessity for him to go into details of what he did in the laboratory, step by step.” [39] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini menerima keputusan analisis yang dibuat oleh SP1 berkaitan dengan identiti dan kuantiti dadah berbahaya serta racun tersebut seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia [ekshibit P11] serta seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh. Milikan (possession) ke atas dadah berbahaya dan racun [40] Bagi membuktikan elemen milikan, 2 unsur utama yang perlu dibuktikan ialah elemen fizikal iaitu milikan yang merujuk kepada jagaan dan kawalan fizikal ke atas dadah berbahaya serta racun tersebut serta elemen mental iaitu pengetahuan. [41] Di dalam kes Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] 22 MLJ 237, Hakim Thomson telah menjelaskan tentang kedua-dua unsur tersebut pada muka surat 239 seperti berikut: “A movable thing is said to be in possession of a person when he is situated with respect to it that he has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need. To put it otherwise, there is a physical element and mental element which must both be present before possession is made out.” S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [42] Berpandukan kepada nas yang dinyatakan di atas, adalah menjadi suatu prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa bagi membuktikan seseorang itu mempunyai “milikan”, perlulah dibuktikan melalui keterangan bahawa seseorang itu mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut dan bebas berurusan atau mengendalikan barang tersebut sepenuhnya tanpa penglibatan orang lain (power of disposal to the exclusion of others) dan mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut. [43] Mahkamah ini mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai milikan (kawalan atau jagaan serta pengetahuan) ke atas dadah berbahaya dan racun yang dijumpai dan dirampas daripada dalam beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ [ekshibit P21] yang dijumpai di atas kotak tempat letak tangan (armrest) di bahagian tengah antara tempat duduk pemandu dan penumpang hadapan dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut, yang menjadi subjek kepada Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4 berdasarkan alasan- alasan yang berikut: a) SP3 telah mengetuai pasukan serbuan ke Lokasi Serbuan adalah berdasarkan mendapat maklumat jabatan tentang aktiviti pengedaran dadah yang dijalankan oleh seorang lelaki cina dengan menggunakan Kereta Peugeot di kawasan Jalan Dagang SD2/1G, Bandar Sri Damansara, Petaling Jaya; b) Setelah lebih kurang 15 minit pemerhatian di Lokasi Serbuan, barulah SP3 nampak kehadiran Kereta Peugeot tersebut dan Tertuduh yang telah keluar bersama dengan SP5 menuju ke Restoran 33 tanpa membawa apa-apa barang di tangan; S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 c) Beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ hanya dijumpai dari dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut setelah Tertuduh dan SP5 dibawa keluar dari Restoran 33; d) Keberadaan Tertuduh dalam Kereta Peugeot tersebut yang baru sampai dan parkir di hadapan Restoran 33, memasuki Restoran 33 tersebut dan dibawa keluar semula menuju ke Kereta Peugeot tidak dapat menyakinkan Mahkamah ini untuk membuat inferens bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan ke atas kandungan beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ tersebut; e) Tiada mana-mana dari telefon bimbit yang dirampas daripada Tertuduh; f) Timbul keraguan apabila tiada mana-mana dompet atau seumpamanya yang dirampas daripada badan Tertuduh yang lazim dibawa oleh seseorang menuju ke sebuah restoran tetapi sebaliknya kad pengenalan Tertuduh dijumpai dalam beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ bersama-sama dengan bahan dadah dan racun di dalamnya; g) Kaitan antara Tertuduh dengan bahan dadah atau racun yang terkandung dalam beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ tersebut adalah kerana dia yang diperhatikan memandu masuk Kereta Peugeot tersebut ke dalam kotak parkir di hadapan Restoran 33; S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 h) Kereta Peugeot tersebut bukanlah milik Tertuduh dan malahan SP5 juga mengakui pernah menggunakan dan memandunya; i) SP4 yang mengakui memiliki Kereta Peugeot tersebut tidak dapat mengesahkan siapa yang memandu kenderaannya selepas beliau ditangkap yang mana dikatakan digunakan oleh seorang ‘kawan’; j) Selepas tangkapan, pihak polis telah membawa Tertuduh ke Hotel Silka, Cheras yang mana terdapat unit yang disewa ke atas nama SP5 yang menunjukkan kemungkinan penglibatan SP5 dalam pengedaran dadah sebenar; k) Malahan SP5 dalam pemeriksaan balas mengakui telah mendaftar masuk di Hotel Silka tersebut untuk tempoh daripada 16.11.2020 hingga 18.11.2020. Menurut SP5 lagi, beliau pernah dijatuhkan hukuman oleh Mahkamah berkaitan kes dadah l) SP5 juga bersetuju dengan cadangan peguambela bahawa beliau pernah dijatuhkan hukuman berkaitan dengan kes dadah. SP5 juga ditahan bersama-sama dengan Tertuduh semasa serbuan tersebut tetapi tidak dituduh di mahkamah; m) Tiada apa-apa keterangan yang menunjukkan Tertuduh membuka, membawa, memeriksa dan memegang beg silang ‘Mont Blanc’ tersebut. S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Pengedaran (trafficking) dadah berbahaya Methamphetamine [44] Memandangkan pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan sepenuhnya unsur milikan yang merupakan elemen penting dan utama bagi pertuduhan mengedar dadah berbahaya, maka kesalahan pengedaran (trafficking) seperti mana tafsiran di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952 juga tidak dapat dibuktikan. [45] Begitu juga dengan anggapan statutori pengedaran (trafficking) di bawah seksyen 37(da)(xvi) ADB tidak terpakai dalam kes ini kerana kegagalan pihak pendakwaan membuktikan elemen pemilikan Tertuduh yang meliputi aspek kawalan, jagaan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah Methamphetamine tersebut. Keputusan di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [46] Setelah meneliti dan membuat penilaian maksimum (maximum evaluation) ke atas keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan berbanding dengan elemen-elemen pertuduhan kesalahan yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini telah merumuskan pada akhir kes pendakwaan ini bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan sepenuhnya elemen-elemen kesalahan bagi Pertuduhan 1, Pertuduhan 2 dan Pertuduhan 4 tersebut. [47] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini memutuskan berdasarkan alasan-alasan dan dapatan Mahkamah ini seperti mana dinyatakan di atas dan dengan mengguna pakai test/ujian untuk membuktikan kes prima facie seperti mana dijelaskan di dalam kes PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar (supra), Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N dSORIklOj0qEYl2cgpIbtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-45A-50-06/2019

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH 1. ) Mohd Nazri Bin Wahab 2. ) Wan Hamdan Bin Wan Hashim

Perbicaraan jenayah melibatkan dua tertuduh- dituduh dengan niat bersama mengedar dadah seberat 54.52 gram jenis Monoacetylmorphines- pertuduhan di bawah S.39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dibaca bersama S.34 Kanun Keseksaan-Urusan jual beli dadah dijakankan di Medan Selera Wawasan Mersing-Polis cuba minta sampel dadah dibekalkan- OKT serahkan sampel diminta-serbuan dibuat-OKT Kedua larikan diri dan berjaya ditangkap- Laporan kimia sahkan dadah berbahaya- pembelaan gagal sangkal anggapan- didapati bersalah dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan- dijatuhi hukuman penjara seumur hidup dari tarikh tangkap dan 12 kali sebatan.

14/01/2024

YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c7acd9ed-6186-4daa-b94b-6f782ce41b7b&Inline=true

14/01/2024 10:31:37 JA-45A-50-06/2019 Kand. 161 S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 7dmsx4Zhqk25S294LOQbew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal .n\—a5A—5o—ns/2019 Kand. J61 DIMAHKAMAHTIMGGIMALAVADIJOHOR aifi ?:”m‘ min” DALAIII NEGERI JONDR DARUL TAKZIIII PEREICARAAN JENAVAN NO: JA-45A-50-06/10!! PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN 1‘ MDHD NAZRI am wuua 2. win: HAMDAM am WAN HASNIIA ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pongnmlan [11 ><e¢ua—aua xerwaun telah diluduh uenuan Mal bersnma mengadzr danan seberal 5452 gmm Janis Mmmacsrlylmurphmee m bnwah 1. zsamqs) Akta Dadah Bemahaya 1952 (ADE) dvblca bersama 1 34 Kanun Kesekuan. ‘ [2] Penuduhln lerhadap meuexa mien tapem bankul: ’BahawAkImu bsnamvsamn pldI2A/1DI201E]im mam kumngl Ju pelang a. parkarangan Mednn s-ma Wawasan mu wmun :5 mm Wawiun mm Dnerah Mevsmg dl damn Meuevx Jahor mm! Yakzm‘ «em mmgedar nadnn hemahaya denuln mm mm 5452 gram Mam'Amety\morpmnes olemuu mm man metaluknruatukasalahan ummn seksyen 3BE417(a) Aha mm Memnh: 1952 an arm mhukum dnbawah seksyan seam Akva ynng um: an em. bzrxlml nksyen 34 Knnun Kesekslavf M4» swarm: sw 7dms.xAZrvqk25S2MLDDbew -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [3] D1 akhu kes penauxwzan, uyu memulusklrl bahzwa pllllk pendakwien benarya membukfikan kes puma Iacis aws penumman ke mas melekl dan lenuduh-lenumm dlparlggfl urlluk membela am. [4] Marexa telah memlllh unluk llVBllIhSfIK81‘BYan§flrI bcmlmpzh dun memarlggll email (4) saksl mm pumbelain yang Iain nl axhlr kas pambelaanl says merldapill terluduhlenudun gagal mengakas anggapin di bawah s.a1 (da) dam Iatemsnya gagal menlmbulkarl keraguun yang mlmaubah lemaaap kas pendakwaan Maka mpulumn bahawn uelldakwaan lelah berjaya memhulmkan ken melampaul keraguan munzszbah [51 Keduadua lenuduh tslzh fllsehnkan darl dllalunl nuklmlarl penma seumul mdup Hukumnrl 12 klh malan luga calm dlkenakan Iemadap hertuduh penamu |l|apl dlkecuallkan Iarhadap lertuduh keduu alas laklor we [61 Kedumua mumm lalah rrlerayu ks Mahkamall Ruyuarl alas kepulusan celsenul, maka benkul adalah alasan saya M-mil kn Pandakw-In m Tlndakan siasalan awal kes IN bermula sank 19 102013 apablla pangadu, lnlpekml Than Jla Jlun lsm) malarlllk ><apomlAxlzamamn bln All (SP!) dun samng Iagl anggola, Mnhd Adm bin Mom Nur (AP2) sebagal agsmpruvocA!9l1r(AP) urlluk berhubung darlgarl seomrlg lalakl bemsma 'Wae“ llemmun kedua) bagi umsnn petanan dndah “Pan.-as‘ lam: herclrl. [5] Panemuerl mereka dlbua| m em MARA, Merslng Manglkln kelerungarl SP5, Ierludlm keduu psrgl ke lukasl merlalkl iabuah lama lenls Hand: :12» memhemen|ikarl kerldsraarmya dl sebarang lzlan Was belsama seorang lag: yang dlkanall sehsgal Mat vi (tenuduh penamal mu :1. tempat yang duanjikan flan Mal vl lunm darl kereia an pergl ke 2 M AEAJAIOSIIOW mm: xzsszmwlnnew SW s..l.l..”El..Mm...l;....nml,wmllln.l-y.«mm..l.m...;l.m W 9 Fenerimaan masuk penyata ms‘ 5:: (ahli kvmwz) Iidak memnmrn pemmmn M02512; KTJ kerana «uak mmankan kspadz pegnam emput {wins (14; hurl sabeium «arm: parbtcaraan. [341 Eagl luwan punhukman mihkan lerhafllp dadnh. undsng-uruianu adalah mamap bahawa dangan nanya mempunym ‘again nan kuwalan ke cu: man lelsebul max mammkupw unluk membuklikan pemllwkan (mm lbnnlm Molnumud v. PP[2fl11]l cu 1». [35] Arman Aug: uamasaman nas kes—k:s dmunn hahawa dna emman yang diperlukan umuk membukhkin pammxan man kawalan rmknl darn pengalanuan Unmk memunum unsuvflzikak Ii mam dmmwkkan bahtzwa larludulrlerluduh bamfln bemamplran dengun dndsh flan msreka bulah mengend kannya seowzr-man ia adalah mmx mereka Bngx unmmenm mu mans Isa pma, perm mhukmcan bahavm tenuflun-lenuduh bermat acau hemasrat umuk berurusan dengan d1iRh\elS»eDUl(in’9llO9dID deal wnn the drugs) (Muk xea PP v Andul Ranman AkiI[2001] 5 ML! 237 (FD), Chan Pun L-an :1 PP [1556] 22 Mu 137016)) Dmam em‘ kata lam, xapenuan unsur fizwkal dan rnemal Iersebut penu wum dan flvhukuksn sabelum pemilnkan l1apa| amukcikan [:46] bemlduh rnempunym kawalan dan figaan Berta pengatahuan msngenai dadzh yang uwmpal max: Iinyi adalah imam mmkau mereka semasa dwangkap Di aklw kes pend:-Jkwaan says menaapnn bnniwl kedua-dua 1371 Penn penngkat an suya manenma kelerzngan s>=s yang man benindzk sehagal AP wing manghubungw tzenuduh kedua mu huuan membelx dadah pada 15 102018 Say: dapah spa adalah saksl yang kredvbel‘ konsis1en dan nada sebah umuk memgui kelevangannya Jika pun wu;-u pemanggahan‘ paaa pendapal saya wanyz mak memelaskan n syn 7ams.v.4zr~qx25s2mLax2new -ms sum nu-uhnv wm he used m mm u. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm kreamum SP5 dun liada kamlmgkman un my absence 0/ any Inherent tmpmlzebmy) umuk menjadikan keterangarmyi nauk belch ditarima (mm PP y mm hall Hnnm am mm mm (M1 2) mm 1 MLJ 15). [as] Samnda menoukupx umuk saya mansnmn kularangan psnlmg hanya flan sealing saksi‘ adalah undang-undang manlap banuwa kemringan mambang dun bukan fllhllsng (svfdsncs rs wmgnea and not counted) yabngaimana dtpeluntukkan dalam 51:4 Akla Kexemngan 1950 unuunwnaang adzlah ‘elas bahawa ‘No psmcular number n! wnnesm man In any mass be required lo! we proof nl any Iacr Temlnmanyi ]Ika kelerangan saksi tsrsebul kansmen flan kl9d||7a\ [291 Make‘ saya dapih. mengenal xemangan sakmaks. palis m pevingkal mu kmmum marek: ada\ah uluh den say: berpandungan mama sebah \m|uk meragm kebemngan muraka (mm PP v, Momma All um) 25 Mu 257 dun snan /rwan Ton v. PP[2n1J]1 LNS am 14:21 Sabagai AP‘ kalarangun SP5 boleh dirslima mnsuk um perm xmenngan sukungan sps jugs adalah my yang kumpelen. Kenyalaln ml adalah benandankan perunlukan undang-undang flan nas kus duluan sepeni dwbawuh‘ 'sl1E Akta Kalersngan me All piuaru mu an compacenl no rsuuiy unlzu m. wan wnmsrs max may are pmenm tmm umieunndmg ma quuuonl pm to men or lmm gmng mum lnlwars m mesa queslwans by ttndu yells, mmuma aid nun‘ uheale wnalmx uv body ar mm. or Iny mnu caun mm: same mm Emhmnnn--A msnlxlw msmdead persm at . hmnhc n. nm mmmnelam In mm mess he us prevenled a, nu sandman nun unnantandlng (ha quesliuns um um nm um grvmg m|\una\ antwari «u Imam s wA ADE Am Ewdanca of um pnwouheuraflmlsaume u nu sowzow syn 7dms.x4Zrvqk25S2MLDDbew -um Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (1) Nmwihlhndlnn my N11 cl Vuw av ma pwvluuns an (M5 M1 or my mm wlman xaw n: the cnnvaly. no man: Dfflmcllnur mm In praumad on be “mm cl mum Dy nvawu unfy L7! nu hlnng Iltempwa be me: u mm the uammlsflm M in aflenoe by my pmlnn mm an A4 w the mm on aim! or ih-Itvwnl wu cm the we purpose or semmn: evmance mm new person (2; Natwlltulandmg uny MD or law 37 ms Act or any any wvmm W m (ha wnrmy, and mum mm pmvoumuns - Duke: Mfiurvnltevevml um 51 Im nlflur av cuswms‘ any ilatemenl‘ mum oral or In mung mm: m .n mm Dnwnulaur by my Damn whu subuquvmy u chargad war: In mm underlnu Act mu ne;armssmu Isewmnea nlhlsmnl [41] Mahkamah PeIueku|uan dalam kes Wm MondA1mnn Hunn v. PP[2I71l7] I cu no Ie\ah membmcunqkun isu mi sepcm b-nkul: 17] m a «Wm pom unuemamapuunm wennna Au mwenen m mu at!) am gonna wamu reouwa wumuun Vvum Ks mmr M a mu: Iuflldunfl mmuy An Iienlpmotaleul nmmlfly mnueflx noun mun mu um bu utngned mumnmmm cam a“slIng nplralorf Thnlgenlpvuvomveuv MU gel m much man we Infmmnr ma mfammr vml mm lvmnna my in .m.m..m..m manna boiwamlhalganlmwnramuv, (mow plnylivelme ova an-nuyer) mm the drug Immdxav Yhainlnmwrwm Ink: nu Iunmvutrve mi: m mmwy umiwaav Nmuauom mu men an ptlae hmween me am: prwocarauv me me drug Illmcku mm: 0: Imwm m «mg; ca bu Iuwled II was and New Mdehvery mu he mscussed Ind named upon The men: prmourem mmu mus my .n mm rule "I m. mmmlwuu cl mu emu sum umn became wflfinn pamupam m that mm IN: .1; mu m men! by In: {muse ‘tn Ib=| me cammrmou ov It-1 orlmui n mm In 5 AnA(1)o1mn Am The age»: pvuwcateurs M: \s In unwver ma enema and gmnerevxdenne m In my glvln n in: ma! Ig:mi|lM(ra1fid<ev ms us discussed mm m wnmdqmenl, hmmvev um ... lmupnlnhrvll awn mu m . Vlnmmlta dflanoa [my An mm pmmcltnuv mly mm as annm as one who pmms or wuussls ms mnmmm at m offence to Another person hapmg \1u\Immmr mu go along mm m Iungulmn w am me my purion may be oomtdzed M 1; «.45. saJ:mn<9 sw mm4zma2ssz-maqnew mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Ina umna me man: Pvwacatnur suiflebted In In nmnaw av uw by LB Curmn m u duflmd u . pclwn Mm -rlhnu mmnnnn cnmnm .n Ixrunl much M In: wwmm v. wwm nan umemse Mm: eummmad ma men weaned: In mm m him m u peaulxuchmhms nq rm Mdunoe m an am: Pvuvouaauv .. hwwsr ml mar at an u::wVInI\ee‘s Ind u um requires M: wrmonrnncn (see Yen Singh 5 Manama Nuwv I=P[194v|1 Lusssaxsosun away up [1994] « SLR na; Inmmcue spmmrwxlkmmrumnk-slhniouammdmmcnonbmwnn .n ....m pmvnoluuvand .n Iocolnpkot by making rnferanee mm. pnisigu lmm Emnemrv c»..z..my.u; sum 1 LR aa cm 95 A mum Mm m-kg: mmnaw m lgnm lur mu pvouumon mm the nurpaw or mwcvmlnn um dndouna ms wmmlmun «r In oflanoe. emter mum um.nn,, mm wmnn-an-VI av hdmvu m. amm pupmum Mm: mm», In m:| .n zacomnflee an - !W.deIer.1ve or away Mama mam don wt mumm canulmmlmn, though on wgm in be mm-.4 ta: Mdepsudl an me chamclm av cam mdMdu:\ Mines: In such use am a mum Mm 1: uswum wlm m mm mm : ummw swan, me extandi no ma non: pvvsecunan nu mar >5 mvvnmvsswn u m. mcamuhae Icqulmg unrmhuvnhnn ha) ms obsmvallcn of me audhwerimness M in mm Dvmmcaieuv u mm arlxlulnnd m x mm at am An wmch nvw pvwldu v~ Dviiumplwn on evednwrmnunrss HA] ms Wtsuntvhun mm . mamnnywxms ‘. mm vebulmme u mu upnn 0.. uuianm mun In Iddum iumcnnl wldavu For m. noun (0 oondudl that man Manna: of an aunt Druvcunaur us unwulhv 91 mean (Se: up V Hm Kung Juan z. 0n[l383]1CLl 245 [19ss]cLJ(Rav)71: Na) [1§]Um‘larn Ana mm. Act. the Uwdmwolme mm pvuvaca1euvunrvu|ba exams m the exemxse uf wdlni dusaeumw (see Evklemse Pmcnm inn Fmmduvu and mn by Auqulhna Pin!) An ulherwxsa norm:-MN: umdulvca such n M: on: “men 40A Mme Adams nm bseome mdmu;\h\a mnmy bcuun n ma nun wmpropafly orunlumy untamed Eamon wA42)o1In- Act ammws (Ms nflmmmn mmummm -My nlhar mm, wrvltm m allmwua, m u sm mm4zma2ssz-maqnew mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm IM com1IVY He may mm mm ma mu navy M wnac huwened In N: mgntiaunrvs mcnmaama sslbtam my amarnananmaanyma mhrtn mm man be sflmvsswn Vn mam ' [42] Pzda Iahap ‘ ada kalalangan alau mcmi yang memungkmkan SP5 mak hercakap benar flan aaua alasan untuk saya meragui xecerangannya. [431 mu Dercanggahan dengan kalarangan spa‘ camgn yang dwgunakan max mkamukakan‘ moat kejatflan yang sabenar (aamzda di parxarangan lempat letsk karela Medan Se\era am an penkarangln Medan Sabra), gamaar Pam), yania dadih samaaa harem auau Mnnaacefylmorpmne nan setemsnya isu direct Nslfickmg umawan .2 Ana, paaa pendapal saya‘ awn Ianya (idnk lalal ua mgr mink menmaskan pambukhzn Cora xaam pam «an keterangln SP5 n dadah yang dlkemukakan [441 Walaupun yang dirundlng menyehul hemm |etapI selelah bahan dvimvas dim manansa clan SP3‘ hahan yang sama auaxan monainellymorphmen Ianya mumbenluk ranman kanenngan harang kes yang lidzk |srpu|u5 [451 Pendakwann belgamung kepada anggagan pengedsran (11 man s37(da) maka pemhuklran euaman am: Imlfmking sepem yang dmujallkan u\eh gaguann max Iebvzn. [46] Fakta bahawa |enuduh kedua bemuhung dengan SP5 den keaua duanya mga hadnr cmempa! kejaman dengan marnhawa dadah yang ramvu. Aelas membnknkan e\amen .agaan gan kawman. Samrusnya vakva bahawl keflua-dua larwdun menyebut kauaaaan aamuel (dadsh) paaa kali panama perlemunny uan memhum yanji Ierrm yang henkumya, selemsnya manunjukkan sampel yang mbawa kepada svs dan juga dsngan kaIa—ka1a tanuduh kadua kepada sps — ‘ljtks berluku upersps 15 am 7amuAZM1k25s2mLax2new -ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used a mm a. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm wa anum Wm! ham" mi, demo tak mm Marsr'ng' manunjukan salt: marsh bahawa umsan Ni‘ bsfi Iarwbul mambabilkan aaaan yang banyzk dzn ada da\zm pangllahuan (anuduh kedua bsrhuhung umsan mengenax dadah bersebut [471 nnaaxan tanuduh kadua melaflkan am sebelum dnangkap jug: mempakan salu Neran yang wan unannu umuk manunyukkau Kewuluuan pangavanuan mennensi Keberadaan dudah dallm bunqkutan (mwk Parlan mam v PP (moo) 5 MLJ 19 San Aow aun-n v PF (21:11; 1 cu 273; [46] sexemsnya, kehamran keduadua (srwduh pm nan kqsduan sabelum sevhuzn danfakla bahawa sa\ah searing dzri melekalahh pelgw mendipmkan sampax mevqzdikan elemen mm belsama Iehsh dibuklwkan (mwx PP V. MnhnmodAIi(1962) 25 ML] 251 dun spun Irvnn Ton V. PP (2011) 1 LN5 1m. [49] Manganaw Isu kamzk patuhan kahendak semhan empzl bangs (14) nan sobemm venyaca Saks: wen auamna masuk mengwkulsM)1B(2), Peg-mrn (shah melwuk kevlfla kes Muhklmlh Rayuan dalam Abucnl Nywoku v PP mm 5 21.1 1 yang megwklm kepumsan kes Mnhdt Ku-mmrym.-uh Knoammi v. PP (2015) 3 cu .m yang mana kevulusannyi Celah dw sahkan ofeh Mahkamah Pemkunuan [sul Earkail dengzn wsu «N, sayz marujuk kepada kepmusan Mahkamah Persskuluan yang mpunuskan selepas kss—kes yang msehul dlatas‘ mu Almn Nudo Anna v. PP (211171 1 LNS m dan saya pen 'flI]\n mu ,.mgm.m, U: rsqmmman| undlvsarmun 11123 a! zn. CFCe~enfl1b09h mlndalury M n nevertheless Droueduml nn nmme Therefara mm gm: vuewlim nun wmnlunczmme Dvwmunx-venumhle uMarssn:1mn422uVme cm - 1: wwmmn syn 7dms.v.AZM1k25s2mLam-.ew warn Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm n. nvwhuflly mm; mmn vn mum pm [511 Dalam kss mi. pada hari sakm spa hndiv unmk mamnenx-n kalalangarmya, wwaupun Penyala Saks: behau baru diserahkan namun say: ada bertanyakan kapada puguam samada behau hersedia unluk mamunksa Mm Iaksl dan vsguam menuelahkan bahawa ma bevsema dan hznyz mempunyaw beberapa soalan same [521 Walaupun say: merekodkan bamanan neguam, namun |enuduh— tarluduh max mprejuavskan dalam ans: csra xekah pun karana peguam sudah barpeluang Immk mambau dan memenkaa balas ulm SP3 Mananma pakzl nae um1ang—undung kes Alrnl Nude Anna, kegagalan membuatvarahan emual belas (14) hari senexum perblcaraan mamplkan um kshdak panman mg bnleh mpulmxan mengikm penmlukan 5 422 KM [53] Oleh yang demlkun. saya merumuskzn hahzwa bevdasarkin kepaua kelevlnflan yang mxemuxukan flan dapetzn «am dlztas‘ shaman pemmkan aaann lersebul «em: dlbulmkan secaru aflrmalfl Ksdua-dun Tenuduh man msngednrdadah [54] Bag. meme" peugaaaran, mumandangkan ebmen panuhkan Ielah beriaya dibuknkan make saya membual dapalan hihawa mu kes pnms facle pengedalan mmmman hawah seksyen mu) KTJ, dengan pemakman anggipan bewah seksm 37(da) ADE (Iujuk kas Ahdullnh mu) bemasarkan hem dadah Morvoacelylmcrplllnas yang mslsh . mam mimma 15 gram (5 37(a.)(m;) [551 men yang dermkvan, xeauama «emu-m |e|aI1 mpanggfl Imluk memhem am an meleku mevvmlh unmk memben keterangan sacira barsumpah 11 M454 smazmo sw 7ams.v.AZM1k25s2mLar2new -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Ku Purnbouun [55] Pamnexaan Ie\ah mengamukakan kalemngan aan enam (6) mung saksw Isrmasnk Ksdua-dun |enuduh [571 Pembexaan Ierluduh panama adelah nanawa an cam: dilangkap di Medan Se\era Taman Wawasan kelika sedung memesan makanan. ma dadah dljumpel ma badun beuau dan (idzk mengelahm lenlang dadih yang dmampas Tenudun xeaua menaflkan pamah bevhubung dengln sps (AP) dan mangavakan lpa yung amyacaxan oleh sws max pevnah barlaku Nnangmu lammuh kedui, man dnangkap mnaama Iarluduh panama samasa berada di ksdaw makan mwk nslsnnyu a. Medan Salem Taman Wswasan Kanka serbuzn‘ «anuuun kadua barllndak melaflkan um Kerana ma baru mengambd dadzh dan khualiv akan pasml nnngan aw kencmg Selelan henaya dwtangkap, Iiada dadzh duumpai pad] badan lerluduh kedua [531 Sebemm ka Ema: Polls, kaduaduz kznuduh (elah dlbawa ke mman |emduh kedua dan ke salu bengkax (bangkel No 57) unmk pengeledahln [591 Tenuduh ksdua wga manafikan ada bsnumpa auu barhubung dengnn spa flan menganakan kenyavaan spa Iidak benar aan Husk pama» nenaku Tenudun xeaua nanya mengukul qua mengambil dadah aemn uahammnya Mam bukan seorang pengeuaruauan. [an] sakaaaka. lam pembalaan nanya mangesahkan lemmuh penama din ksdua, flan saorang nernama Pual Ida ke kadaw pada hari serbuan 5:33 am sus msngasahkan ada mendengar palm benanyakan dlmana aaaan naaa terludulrlenuduh Analin kn: pmmuan [61] Pemhehaan cenumm-«anuaun nanya meruurus kepada kamungklnan dadah dijumpnl dw bengkel No s1 din bukan duserihkin kepaaa AF dalim karma m pelkarangan Medan Selera Wawassn. .a 4. .5. snqa/we aw 7ams.v.4zr~qx25s2mLax2new -ma Sum nu-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII anum Wm Pembelaan mg: memmbmkan kewujudan uorang bemama Pqal fllmaja makan sebelum koduadua Ierluduh dilangkap Knsamu: sakm awam pambelaan yang lam konslsten dalam pangavaan mereka nanawa keduz— dua |ar1uduh dnangkap semasa berada di nueya makan sabemm mama flan (arluduh kedua malankan an [521 Saksw-saksw pemoexaan wga menekankan Fakta bahawa Iaorang palm herbangsa Ema zda henanyaken “mnns under kepada (anuduh- tsmduh semis: an»a.a makan yang memunnkmkun dauah sebenamya maslh belum dijumpax ma masa tsrsehul seoeruanya lakla ballzwa mavekz man bemenk ks aatu aangkax, mg: memungkmkan dadall Ielah duumpal di bengkax No 57 Analin dun napaun diakhir Kn P-mholun [531 Eerdssalkan kepadz seksyen IBZA Kn nxa pendakwaan beuayl mambuknkan kesnya mawannaaui sebamng kelsgusn yang nmnasaban, larmduh nanuaman mdapam bevvahh dan disabnknn Nanmn jvka nnanknya. Mahkamah handakhh nuerepas dan marnbebaskin lenuduh 1Ru]uk kes salaananunn -/. PP [2905] 1 cu as dan Manama R-4»: bin Yucab v.PP1m111 cu Rap 311) [54] Mengenal inggapan pengadavan amawan simda), bahan alum barpmdzh kepaua nenuaun-xammun umuk menylngkal anggapan ferssbul alas nnaangan kehurangkahzn yang mana behinnya aaaxan wean. Dem dan menlmhmkan keraguan yang munasahah tmwk Kas PF v. vw-mlnmj 1 ms MI) [65] Mengwklfl kes uam Hang Boon v. PP /2012] I LNS 1455‘ Manksmsh Rayuan memuluskan in (M zppoflanl had to rebut me apaany. pvesumpflon at (riffickmu under s (Inna) m the am 011013 a. no: avpmmnuax That Mal M vemm phcls . Nglwr avldlrmlry buman on ma uppe\InM' 19 my sn mm syn 7ams.v.4zr~qx25s2mLax2naw -ma s.nn In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnaflly mm; flan-mm vn .mnc Wm! [se| Dengan pemakavan Inggapan dw bawnh samm mi wga‘ slsmsn pegsdalzn lelah dianggap mike zsmmumenu-1un fllkinikan mangedar daduh |ursahu| sahmggn amukukan sabahknya (um ma contrary rs pmvud) Tenuduh-lermduh dengan um perm menuamukakin Keterungan yang mencukupx untuk mangakas unqgaoan tersebm alas xmbengan keharangknuln trujuk Mg cm: K-m v PP mm; 2 cu 5»: dan Motrin!-Id Rldnl v FP(1§92)2 SCR 145) [67] Dalam pimhalaan larluduh, lelah dinwahkan o\ah peguam sepem belikul sehagal hukxi sanggihan (rubutm/ewdunoe): 1 Feguam mevujuk kepada keharnngun SP6 yang memhslakan serbuan dx benukel Na 57 dan ks mmahtenuduh ksdua dan SP7 dan memdakkan peluang unluk svv menjahnkan uasanan yang langkap Kawalan barzng xes men we aemacz semuan mbual m hsngkel No 61 (idak mjslaskan malt: rimsflan kelsrangan barang kss wan lelpulus Pembehan lenuduh-(ermduh hukan penafian keranl sakmakn. pembelaan mengarsahksn bahawa pada hnri xelaaunn kadua dua (snuduh bevsamn searing lagl bemama Pual seuang duduk dart memasan makanan den mmuman aebulum disarm nleh anggoua nah: Keadaan menjadi kelam kahut dan tenuduh panama man: melankan am sns flan sue nan mendengav anqgoia pulis hemnyakln walan kapada termduh-Ienuduh lemang dumani dadah dwsemhunyrkin sm mengatakan pnhs (idak manzumpau bmng salah pad:-1 |emAduh penami dan kedua dan mamlma Ibunya pulang ks mrnah unluk membuka mnm mman sebelum mareka bergerak ks sana zu Mwmsmw sw 7ams.v.4zr~qx25s2mLax2new -ms sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm aran kendaraan SP5 dan AP2 yang kernudualmya mennuik mevaka pevgi berurusan d) Medan Sew: Wawusan‘ Maning. [91 Fada ms. nu lsrluduh kedua membenlahu ss-5 banawa ma tiduk msmpunyii sarmzls (conlnh dzflah) an Iangirmya dan mangurahkan tertuduh panama umuk mengamhll oonluh aaaan an Endau (perjalanan ks Enaau diangaaman mengamml mass AD nunm aan meveka baqann semula unluk benump: an Puma: Mamng dzham mm 1 Jam 1101 max Yam: savapas nu‘ Kemmuh kedul msnghubungw SP5 aemuxa dan mmna herjumpa ksmball an xawaaan Gm! MARA flan menyerahkin sanu gem plasnx Iuxanar kepadi SP5 yang mempakan sampna yang dljanukan [11] Maklumaz mu le¥ah dinannan kapada SP6 pads 231n2ma maka salu operasl samuan (e\ih dirancang pads 24 10 2013 [121 Fada 24102015 dw pelkarangan Madan salara Wawasan‘ ssvs dan angguta samuan man memnuu pemamaxian dan mslihsl svs berwusan dengan tanuduh panama aan kedua Talan yuga dipevhahknn bahaws (erludun kedua mamima Iammuh panama mengamhul dadnh umuk diserahkln Kepada spa Terluduh panama kannaaan hevdin m sebelah kenata Honda memmggu sras flan « menunjukkan kepuda SP5 sew beg praauk huau Apsa) yang mengandungw 3 bungkusan mbalull kerlaa sum khabav yang mana (kemumsnnya mdapsm berisw kelman dadan dlsyakl heruin [13] Selelah membuul pangaaanan (melmal aaaam. SP5 mamhenkln Vsyarat keplda pasukan urbuan Apahlla semuan amuax, lenuduh kedua berfindak malunkan uni memuu ke arlh kawasan pemmahan bemampuan Manakala larluduh panama belinya dflangkap d1 Medan senana (srsebm Tanuduh kadun kemuduannya dljumpai barsanubuny. da\am nbuah mman kepunyazn SF2,se|:e1um benaya unanan. z IA.4M.£ma2m9 an Tdmsul xzsszmwmaw -ma sum .."En.. MU .. used m mm a. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm vn anunc wrm 1o Pemlmaan jug: menaman mlklumil yang mlenma 0197! SP6 rnnnganan kaglzhan dadah aflflah meubannn keauama Ienuduh Tiada penjalisan darl aaksi pandakwaan mengenav kamuna hllangnyz snnnpex dadah Te|Iuduh—t2mAduh dilangkap :11 me}: makan dalam Mednn sewer: dan bukan di perkavangin tempm Vatak karma Medan Salera Terluduh Kean: melankan dun kerzna khuaur unangkap 3155 keaaranan memasuknn dadzh ke dzhm bcdan. Katevangan um pembelaan man membemuk salu kmnolngl versi panmaxnan yang memmbulkan kerzguan munusnbah ke am kasemruhan kus pandakwnn dan menyingkal anggaaan yang dlguna pakal [68] Sebagel man balas, pandakwaan mengahksn Iepem benkul 1. Ulusan jual beh mnexuxnn oxen |vadua4ua1enuduh dengan s»=5 (AP) nan kstavangzn AP adahh mun dan sempuma lanya ganll mcabar aleh psmbalaan 2 Kekarangan pembelain aaaxan rekazn semmmmala nagu nmnyewamaman am musing-mating. 3 Keuemngan pamhelaan mink mwkong dengln Ieharzng mum acau sake: aan wanar anmax 4 Pembelian gagal lvlsmanggfl penaml Pual mu Aster: (snuduh kadua yang a-maxan jug: hsrada dwempal serbusn. mika s.114(g)(nrpakaI 5 Sumada lempal kajadian aualah perkarangan Medan Sahara -can pelkirangan lempat lelak new Medan Selara lidak sama sekalv mernprwudwikan alau mengellrukan tenufluh-lenuduh 2. umsméwonovv syn 7dmsxAZrvqk25S2MLDDbew -nan sum In-nhnv wm be used m mm n. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VI] mum pm unlnk mengmnngankan penmexasn meveka. Maku nu wm hdak malevial flln Udlk Isle! namaaap kes pendakwaan Ksgagalan pendakwain mengamukan uamnn yang dtgunskan man AP Lidak man an wanyn bukan kelarzngan bukn yang nulenal (Blip! sekadar sakangan Ilhaja Amuk kas Snnnmuynundnm Flnmul A Anon v PF (2412:; 1 LNS 277) 1 Pemhehaan eenuaun-«anuanh sdalah penafian semuurmala [as] Eerkan Isu wujudnyi dua (2) vevsi ketamngan yung barbnz dibenkan meh kedui-dun nexan pihak‘ saya berpendapal kacarangan SP5 cukup kredibel aan boleh mpamayav ksrana |iadz sebah unmk saya mak memneuzyai ke|erarIgannya dan me man! umuk lenudurnerluduh mennnmmn kemungkman srs mgm mevneungkip anan mengenakan «enuann-zen-mm dalam uvusan M1 belt dadan ml. [101 .l\ka IartudIm—|erIuduh mengnukan merangan SP5 hdak kredibek maka Isnudumermduh perlu mengemukiksn kemrangan yang menalkum uagu (uman mennmuxkan ka|eIangan svs uuax boleh dlpemayzx [711 Saya marujuk kes wnn Mohd Azman Hanan m pevenggan 14 sepenl man: yang |elah dvujuk sebelum im, flan saya panx samula my run weiumpunn no bemg . msdhwnmvy wnnm 4; or wurse rehuflams n van. nmn flu amnc. «an In aaduu Iumclem ma-nc. la: «n. mm Io concludl mu m Wm-nu an -M ruumxlhur II unwonny M man Lsee F: V Hm Knng Junn z. Drs[1EE3]1CLJ 245 [1923] cu (mm 773 HO) -Penekinan dilambah [721 Tambahan pma, kelerungin SP5 dmkcng men 596 yang wga mehhal (anuduh-Ierluduh berurusan bemall dengan dadah ying dirnmpas 2: M mnvwwiv syn 7ams.x4zr~qx25s2mLum-.ew 'NnI2 sum ...n.. WW he used m mm n. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII nnum pm [731 Kamangan IamAduh—tsIIuduh gagal menlmhmkan kevaguan mnnisaban banaws mamka sebenarnyz mempunysw mmkan naaan yang dinmpas dan Juua gagav mamanankan anggapan dilxawah s37(dI) unluk pengednmn nanam ks: w anggapan hiny: amuammawan s.37(ua; mm hag! Iupmn pengedamn selelah mllikan man beuaya dlbukllkan uleh pendakwaan. Maka hlqahan pegunm mengelm keglgalan elemen drracz tralfckmg mnmman max Ilmhul rm Kewlqmian panama Pual yang dufluk mum: rnsruka an mejz (idak menganggu namw pandakwaan dalam pembukuln K9: lamadap larluduh-lerluduh. Begin: jugs dengzn Icmpal hem-an, samada wanya dl perkarangan nampac Vatak kerata Medan Selena alau m Medan seweva max fab! kepada kea psndakwasn karana urusan wal beh am»-an oxen spa dan maamn aan meraagan SP5 mbuat ssmasa mareka beradn bemamplran dengan karma Honda dw mkas. sebagawmana dalnm parmauhzn lanya juga mm memprqudbikan am mengelirukan (enuduh-lenuduh dalsm Denyediaan pemhelaan meuaka 175] Saya menslm dan memperllmbinakan kesaluruhun nembalaan \ermduh-Ienuduh dan berpendapal. anya hunya saw penafian samura- mala Hanya kerana ads am: yang mandengarpnhs henunyakan “mans dam’ mak bmeh mhual mmkasy dadah masm bemm duumpal kerana ke|erangan SP5 menyavakan sebahknya [75] Saya harpendapal uaaa Keterangan om: lam yang menyangkal blhawa dadah Ielah dibavm alan Ienuuuh-(emmuh dun msevahkan kepids s»=5 Tenumm kedua jug: ta\ah belkamumkasx flengan SP5 sebehlm wu aan ma Kemungkman alau sabah unmk spa nntuk udnk hercakap benar [17] Pangamaxan saya flan my dsmemzwdzn kunsislensw kemeringmm saya herpendapal kexevangan saksw pendakwzan lahih madman dzn amen 13 M454 wzamv aw 7ams.v.Azr~qx25s2mLax2new -ma Sum nu-nhnv M“ be used a mm a. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm dlparcayau bsrbemiing katalangan xsnuaurmammuu Keoemngan iaksi pembehan yanu 4m max membantu memdakkan kalemngan ku pendlkwaan avau munyangkal kalsrangan bukli yang lelah mkemuknm ale?! :1 hak pendakwinn [vs] Saya sewmsnya «sum menus: uengan lelhl kas panbelaan den lelah membual mam semis denuln seklyan 132A Kn Says jug: memjuk kepada panduan mama: amm kas Monunnd mam vukou mam bsnkut 'n .. . w-1| woman Pflndme M Mauysun umnm law am we gmnx burden cl mm! m mmgnum the (rim an ms pmsmuon |o pmve beyond Iulomme doubt we mm! at me lecnsed for me ufilnuu mm wm ha a crmum Wu: 5 no swmwlav buldeu wind an me Iamled Ia pmve his Innocence He Vs pt:-sumed Innmmvt unalpvuvun guflly m um an aoqunuu, Ms my .. mere» m can . mxmnlhlu doum nu ma pmucounnn min In In mm an Ina pmmmn use, me nmseculmn mny oiowrsa my on avaHax:\n mmmty nrvnumvhnnua pvtws om ov more nllha eumax muraflrenlx -mm: mlrga Wham mu scans the pmicullv omen al pm: as 9950556 to ma gem» mm‘ mm: m m. dflance to mm! inch przstlmplmlu an m Dahnae at pvobumlmes Mum from Ike am». pmm m v-ew ws hemiermm 12» mm" mmnng . velaunabh doubt but Rluurlawy mm llun ms burden ohm pwsecIll\an w prove beyond veinunnma duum ml Knlmpulannya‘ says berpendapm bannwa kelerlngin bukfi ken psmbelnn bukan sekadar sam penafian mam jug: max menyakmm (nor wnvinctngj, Senubungan dengan nu, saya [ugz berpendapal kesemruhan kes pemnexaan gagax umuk memmhmksn keraguan yang munanbah lemadap kes pendakwaan darn mam-"ya gagal memalahkan anggapan mnawah s 37(du)a(asImbang|n ksbamngkahan. n M454 mum.» N 7amsxAZr>nk25s2mLaqnew um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Nukumln [an] Dnlam rayuan mmgasv peguam, heliau Iahah bemuuan usn mamnhan saya mempsnumb-ngm nukuman ahemzm pamamaman weumuv hrdup berikulan dengan pinuaan yang burn dlbull kepada s 395. [ml Satalah mandangar hujan den xeaua-aua belah plhak, saya wan mamzhmkzn hukuman penjara seumur mdup darn |ankh dwangkap temadlp xeduama Kanuduh‘ manaxaxa hukuman aua he\as M2) kah sebalan hanya «em.-map Ielluduh panama Hukuman aehahin dikecuahknn (emadap lnnuduh Kedua Karina man bamsia 5: lahun Eenalikh : to Januan 2024 (NOOR HAVAYI EINTI AJI MAT) Paswumzya Keha ‘ Mzhkamah finggi Mahy: Jonar Bahm Pevwakuan — Bag: pihak Pendakwain. Push SmNor1Iza mm Abdullah Timbalan Pnndakwn Ray: Penna! Feniunsl Undlng-Undang Megan Jnhm Alas 2, Eangunnn Data‘ Jsavar Muhammad Km Vskandar, lskandar Pu|en Johar Eagi when Tenuaun Panama Encvk Mama Fazzry Ah hm Mohd Ghaxnly The Law Chambers 01 Fauly AI: No 24A Jalan Camar 1 Tzman Pemng 51 zna Tampal Jamar 25 AA4sA4oas/zmv sw 7dms.xAZrvqk25S2MLDDbew -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm new pihak Tenudun Kawa- Puan Lydlana ti Manxor Lydian: Law Chambers 4A. Jalan Lembah 1 Tamar: Desa Jaya anon Jnhar Bnhm Jam. If u .5. saoaanm sw vamudzm-4k25s2~MLaqnew -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [141 Meraka kemudmnnya diserahksn kepada spa dzn rampasan um: tandaan um-a\ sebemm msuankan kevada Fegawm Fenyllsat Inspekmmmul Earl hm Amm Law‘ 497) [151 svv menghamar harang kes man-un Km. dan nusn anahsuuhh mma, SP3 Puan Lwew cm mengesahkan daVam Laporan Klmia (pa) bihaws waug ks: yang dirimpas adalah dadah Dsrhahaya mm Manoaoalylmarpmnes aebeml 54 52 gvam D.-nmn niakmr kn Flndnkwnn [15] Di parmgkal akmr km pandakwau sen. xes prim /we sabagalmana amammukxan dalam 1150(1) Kamm ran.-cara Jenayan |KTJ)paI1ud|hukm<an ale» Dlhik Dendakwsan aan knerangun nukn yang wen dnpercaym din kredIhe\ yang mans uka man msangkal akan memholehkan sahnan dlhual (mjuk 5 um 44) KTJ dan kas AbduIl1hAnn Iwn pp mm) 2 cu 151) [171 uugupm "mengemukskan ksfelungan kukuh mg membukuksrv sutiap salu /am. )msulshan"da\am s mom bermaksud bahzwa pihak pendzkwzan perm mambuklikan sehap meman kesalahan saml ads dengan mnngemukakan kalerangan ying wen mpemayau, membuu meren bemadip ram alau menasuna pnkm nnggapan Imdnng-undang (hhal kes Abdullnh Man :1. muks sum! «as; us] Kes Drvmn (acre ualah kes yam: meucukupi wnuk wnuuumerwauh mpanggu umuk mamawab Perluduhan keams meveka dan ketevangan yang dwkemukaknn mennukupw mehainknn ia msangkzl alau dlakas melalui kemrangzn lam tlmat kes smcnanmn v FF mos) v cu 35) Damn kes Om] on-ng Noong Ivm FF (ma) 4 cu ma, pandangnn Vmcsnt Na. J lnlah amuk flan dlsahkan oxen Mnhkamah Psrsekuman da\zm no Abdullnh Alan mengenal spa yang Iequmlah sebagaw salu kas prlma Iscrs sepanl benkut 4. .5. smmnm sw 7ams.v.AZM1k25s2mLar2new -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm “ puml hm: evlflznue xx anaanaa whim .a sumaenl to acraaum : ma m ma absenoa ac my mum. In In cnnlr-ry hm rx um mnnluswe mama Mlaw um mere anmna he uedxhle evade/Ia: an an» Inn vmly mgrwmnl on ma Mfsnra. Credible wmmce xi wndance wmcn nu bun filhuid Inn mm M: gum Ihmugn ma vmcas Me.-muifion Any wflame wmcn H mm mu m be amen upon show! he Msnsd‘ us] Eegllu N93 xezaag-nnana Ipumsknn nleh Mahkamah Rayuan dllam kn: Laal Knw cm: v. Public Pmncurar{2W.'l] 2 MLJ 55, yang msngalakan aapam benkul ‘xx murafum coma ma: them a only am ueruu lhnl . nmna xmmg nlana undav x um av ma cwc ms nu unaamna .1 In: dase a! me hvesecunon an H: munuubren Ina pvulawnun avldumx in nmnnnnn avxmlhnn Ind In uk mnmn ma quulmn w x doufla m ml am the ncnused In mar ms Humvee and he ebm «a nemlm s\|en| In \ prtvavad In wrwxcl mm an (M Inhmy anna mama wrnlmsd \n In Pmnamnn um um. Iluwnr a m ma nan. , man no puma lads am has been nude out nu ma aaama wanna be entmld to In mu-nar [201 Mankamah Pevsekuluarv ualam kc: M-Iylndrnn Ilohirl v. Public Pmuculor[2011] 1 cu nu: wga memuluskan mangana. pam|7uk|an kn prvma Iacie sapeni benkul. -[441 ma Ian an Inn -nu av ma prulcumnn! uxe Vs ‘pmu lame use‘ aasaa an a mnxmmm evamamon an av-deuce me evmuwo hat to an scnmnxau pvupany am not pamnuanny. wrmvfly nv lupmfimlfly n ma wnvuannn mm ex/Menu: reams Vn duums .n we prMeI:uI1un‘s case‘ Imw a nnma Vim: ma has nax beeu nun. am In nuance ouum nod In m aauaa maraw in man at chmy man «am; - [211 Make, di\am menenmkan pamnukuan hes pfima fame‘ sam pamman secara rnmuna perm dlbuallemadap keselumhan kelerangan mum yang dikemukakan Iermasuk memlaw krsdibxlm sakm-saklv dln me|iha| mlelen yang man dwbual dun kelaungan bum kes pendakwaan M.4sA.srMn2mu N 7amuAZM-akzsszmwqnaw Nuns s.nn n-nhnrwm be used a mm In: annnnn mm: dun-mm Va mum Wm unmk membuklikan seuap elemen kesalahan (ruguk K25 pr 1/ Hand R-oxunu B:k:r[10M] 1 cu 457). Kn Prim: Fulv [22] Kntemngan mum yang perlu mkernukauan unluk kasalahln pengedaran .1.-man bevhahaya dw hawah s 39: (1; my ADE zdalah bahanrn dadah yang dxrampac ada\ah didah bamahaya sepeni yang dvsenaraukan dalim Jaauax Panama ADE‘ Va adalah dalam pernmxan kedul-dun «en-mun sviblla umuknxan dudah acman dw bawah Jagun. kawalan den pengevanuan memka flln selemsnya, mereka mengeflar dadah lersebut Pengedamn homh dnbukhkan dengln kalerangln Vangsung bavdasarkan Iafslran pangadaran di bawah seksyen 2 ADE nmu snggapin dv bawih saksyan 37 (d3) lmipa . xmlmn Dadah udalsh yang !ersensrsrdI.laduuIFeI1ama Gan sepsmmm wing dtdefimzsikan dibuumh ADE [231 Jems flan hem dadah mun drsshkin aan ummmxan dun kanmngan spa dan Layman Kwmwa yang dlsedwakan‘ P8 sebagmmana da\am parmaunan hilu ‘ems Monuacenyvnmpnunn isberal 54 52 gram [241 Mangenaw llasil anahsa SP3, saya mermuk kepada kes uununmy vongmmmn v PF (1931) cu (Rep) 221 and Balachandrln v Public Pmucufol (20051 2 uLJ Jov flan m-m-ux baniwa mankamah W “sntivsd m amp: ms apmmlv aims chsmrsl at its face value vwthaut the necessny lo! mm Io go mm derail: 0! what as an m the Vubomlory unless re rs mhersnl/y mcrsdfble ur my aslsnce cells evrdelme m mama: by anomsr expert Pandival mi wga leluh «mm diam ks: rmnixi Din v-noon v PPUWVJ 6 MM 197 oleh Mankamah Rawan syn 7ams.v.4ZM1k25s2mLox2new -ms sum ...n... wm be used m mm n. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [25] nalam kes ini ramamn psvgerakan narang xe: max (arpmus dimana dadah yang uimmpas oleh svs «em dwarahkan kepada SP7, aawanjumya kepada spa unmk dwanalwsa Barang xe: man dmmpan a: sum penywmpanan bavang kes samngga dikemukaknn ke mahkamah pan: nan perblcarian o\eh mumr, sw (hunk kes Gunalan Ramachandnn v PP (2094; 4 cu 551 — " the cham nl svldsncs ;s mom rmpmfam‘ far (he periud mm: the lime u/rscavsry unm me oompmmn ollhs ans/ysrs by the chsm:s.‘..”) [251 Maka dengnn wu, says mendipall banlwa ranvawan katerangan bararvg kes llflak lerpurus dan pmak pendakwaan lllsh baqaya membuktikan alemen ‘ems dun hem daduh sebagavmani dilim penuduhan Irujukan guga umuau mengikm ken SII.IhrIzlIAbduA Ghnnl -/. PF 120141 1 cu 70 cm. su Ah Ping v. PP[1s19] 1 ms mo). [27] waxau hlgalmanaplm, peguam |en.uduh talah mengamukakan n-man-n, yang mans «em. dnrekodkan. menganai penerimazn masuk Penynaan saksx spa yang man: smcaxan nuak dlserahkan empa\ belzs (14)hansebeIum(a1ikh perblcanan (5 4025(2) Kanun Ta|arars Jenayah (KTJ) dan memnhnn agar panyava saksl (emehul udak dnenma masuk Isu mv akan mbmcangkan kemudian dawn hahaglan selanjmnya ahasan penghakiman im Psmmktm tsfimdnp dadah [251 B-rm membuklikan ramuan pendakwain perm mangsmukakan kemerangan hahawz kaauaaua cerruauh mempunyal kawalan alau mm van: pangerahuan tentang dadzh yang mjumpal (hhal kes cnan Pun Loon v, PF[195fl) ML! 237). Mahkamah dalam kes mun Pun L-an was lelah memmuskan nanawa kepurman parmhkan, plhak -. a punch ls saw to as m poswssfan ula Ihmg if he has ma power an aw mm yr as me awnerlo me axclusron ofa/Iomarpemons.' uwmaaama aw 7ams.v.4zr~qx25s2mLax2new -ma Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [291 Maksud "::us1od;/‘ "oan|m\“ and "possession" man an ncnngkan dalam kas Loow Nylnl Lim 1/ Rod [1355] 1 MLJ‘ yang mam: dlpellk sepem benkut. -cumay moans mun cave or yuivdwanmwx wand: m mmy are m cm an ac the cusmdlln mm by neceaslry muuuan he 1. tnldng care av (Ham on m.wmmmeun» Mw vou carmm (aka cam u~ gum umass you mw whevs my m m nnve me new mxammnq mum mar mam Custody mnvafam Vwlhhex mwmga mm. mdsrnnce and vmavaubouh MIN noon: um pow oI<;un1vv\wurmnm‘mnImwm\lv9BJ wuuuun Cuntml mu)! m pvcwnd u . um and :1 mm lnuivnm mu Iahhnn mm. pnncn m me ibods‘ mespeexm Mvmemev my me eenluhum Pvnbabw the mast nawaannmon uwmmwm. \s— ‘The remnan on pawn In: my Wervmch hemym ms Nnsnm exnrcha mm mn1m\ n ma mnmctzr at me mg ldmlls, m In: enzlmlun av mm Percent’ ms a-mm duasncl axpruns um «am my mm. mum-u mm wan! manna: mm: abmaul at mmaw A mun mm mm: at me exmnnce m’ . cum Ind hive lame men of ‘u vmsvaabums balms n- can «ms. any Cumrol mm: The word pesisulon umra..mm..uam= Knwmeflga hmnnlneuzlunly rm urexltxknwwbflge ‘ [an] Mengenaw Pfimbuklvln Denaalanuan, Mahksmah P-uakuman damn! kes Plrflun om Dadoh v Public Pmmmar pm) 1 CLJ 717 memuluskan hahawa a\smen psngelahuan bmeh anmau dzn mleran atau kesxmnulan «am Paflkan yang dnmjuk aura» xspanl benkul. ‘Pwui cl knuvflada wary cm a matter or wnvurunov The mnlan-1 mm mm. the menu: of mawtedge an be drum »/was hum case In case xx wnubd be sumuem Iov me plolawunn Ln pvwv (am: «am wm m mum pvnpsfly be miened mnnne -acuxeu nu ma nenesury kmmsdls‘ MASK soon/min N 7amsxAZr>nk25s2mLaqnew um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [311 Rwngkasnyu, man "pemi an" mennuk kepada keupflvnn pamllflmys unluk hevurnsan dengan dadah dangzn mengecualikan akses mung lam dan mempunyal panqnlahuan lenling dadah yang dlparsomkan [32] Damn kes ML pmuk pendskwnn man mengamukukan fakta dan wnlervan henkul unluk mamhukhkan pimlhkin temadap dadah. 1 Keterangan SP5 sebsgai AF bolah dwsrvna masuk mengukut 3 40A ADE flan svs naalun saksl yang kredlhel flln holeh dipsmaww 2 Kadua—dua |em|duh dengan ‘ems bemmsan dengan sps unluk pennnsnan dadzh |evsabuI. Maka kadua-duanya mampunyni Jigiin, kawalan sans pengatzhuan mmganai dadah yang dvumvas 3 Perbualan Ienuduh keflua henmdak memnkan am wemua savhuzn amuac‘ ada\ah relevan unluk memhukukan kebenalahan behzu 4 Psndakwian rnenggnna pakax anggapan pengedarzn dw bawah s. 37(da)1uI)hen1aasvkan nnnlan heral dadah yang malebmx 15 gram dun infemn bahawa uanya bukan unmk Ksfiunian sendm. 5 Ranlawan kelamngan mm Ixamng kes um lerputus. [as] Pads penngkal inn, pmak pembslaan hemwah separu bankur 1 spa adalah saksw yang hdak bo\eh mpmayau Karina wuwd percanggahzn wng mauannl dangan saksw pendakwaan spa manganav kajadlan pads 15.10 mm 2 Iumnn yang drkatakan mgnnakan umuk manghubungw Ienuduh kedua Mak mnuxnkan kewwudunnyi din (ardapal nercanggannn uecemngan din saksr-saksv mengena: u4s~mw2n<c syn 7amuAZM1k25s2mLax2new Nuns sum In-nhnv wm be used m mm n. nvVfl\ruU|Y mm; dun-mm VI] mum pm penggunaannya dalam lrantiksw amara svs dengan Ierluduh kedua Pemkimn mengenm lempm kejudian yang sebenan slmlda dw perkanangan Medan Selera Wawasan anau m pemarangun mum ram ksrela Medan Saleva. Pemazaan mangenm tampal di ms mpemaxkan o\eh peguzm sebagsn .-mmnan -nengapa ads xepanuan paxukan samuan urwuk ka salu Voknsw lawn wailu dr sebuah bengksl, No 57. Jalan Ha‘: aanm, Kg Pengkamn am Merging (bnngk-I Na 51) selepns langkapnn aimm dw Memn Smera Wawasan Benkman dari humhan d\a1as, peguam mancadangkan aanawa uauan flaak dwampas dw Mauan Se\er: Wawasan mapx duumpaw d1I:engkelNa s7 Gumbar benakel No 67 yang mxamuxakan kepada mankaman sebigau Pam» Kldak sami sepam yam: dtserahkan kepadu peguam kevana paaa sahnan peguam, leldzpm nma Ierlera 'Gsmbsr Bengksl m mans 51 clan 52 menyembunyfknn Dsrang kc: aaaw lru memmbulkan koraguan mangenal «amps: sebenardadah auunwa: Feguam mengamkan pendakwnan msngguna paksi delmasw perlgedarzn dwbawzh 5.2 ADE berdzsarkan rundlngan mal bah yang dlkalakan bsriiku dengan svs Iedangkan had: Keierangan bukn dvkemukakan unmk membukukan kerwuwdan rwvdlngan ma! beh Iersehut Jems dadah yang dlkfllakan dvundmg amzra 595 dengan tarluduh kedua aaaxan jenLa namm sadangkan hzsil anansa spa‘ ‘ems dauan aaaxan mnnuauelyimorphmes naua penjeman drberikan oleh spa mengenau penamaan aan perbexlan anlara cm Iems man lersebul m mwmm aw 7amu4ZM1k25s2mLam:aw -ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm VI] mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24NCC-121-03/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) SAPURA ENERGY BERHAD 2. ) SAPURA TMC SDN BHD 3. ) SAPURA FABRICATION SDN BHD 4. ) SAPURA OFFSHORE SDN BHD 5. ) SAPURA PINEWELL SDN BHD 6. ) SAPURA SUBSEA SERVICES SDN BHD 7. ) SAPURA PETROLEUM VENTURES SDN BHD 8. ) SAPURA DRILLING PROBADI SDN BHD 9. ) SAPURA TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 10. ) SAPURA NAUTILUS SDN BHD11. ) SARKU ENGINEERING SERVICES SDN BHD1 2. ) SAPURA MARINE VENTURES SDN BHD1 3. ) SAPURA ENGINEERING SDN BHD1 4. ) SAPURA ENGINEERING (OFFSHORE) SDN BHD1 5. ) SAPURA GEOSCIENCES SDN BHD1 6. ) SAPURA GEOTECHNICS SDN BHD1 7. ) SAPURA GEOSURVEY SDN BHD1 8. ) SAPURA DRILLING PTE LTD1 9. ) SAPURA 900 PTE LTD20. ) SAPURA DANA SPV PTE LTD21. ) SAPURA SUBSEA CORPORATION2 2. ) SAPURA 3500 LTD2 3. ) SAPURA 1200 LTD PENCELAH 1. ) AQUARIS OFFSHORE SDN BHD 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 3. ) EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD 4. ) UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, LABUAN BRANCH 5. ) UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED 6. ) SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION, LABUAN BRANCH 7. ) ING BANK N.V., SINGAPORE BRANCH 8. ) STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OFFSHORE LABUAN 9. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 10. ) RHB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD11. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD1 2. ) AMBANK (M) BERHAD1 3. ) AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD1 4. ) MAYBANK INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD1 5. ) MAYBANK TRUSTEES BERHAD1 6. ) ENERSAFE RESOURCES SDN BHD1 7. ) Tecnimonthqc Sdn Bhd1 8. ) LPL PROJECTS & LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD1 9. ) MARTIN BENCHER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD.20. ) ARAS SUMBERJAYA SDN BHD

Keywords:COMPANIES: Scheme of arrangement - Setting aside orders - Grounds for exclusion - Abuse of process - Duplicity of proceedings - Spent orders - Repeated application - Fresh application - Expiry and renewal - Changed circumstances - Changes in restructuring plans - Legislative intent - Balancing of interests - Corporate rehabilitation - Creditor rights - Survival of company - Compromise - Avoidance of liquidation - Restructuring - Proof of debt submissions - Effect on scheme jurisdiction - Creation of legal relationship - Bound by scheme - Subject to jurisdiction

12/01/2024

YA Tuan Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3bc68536-5432-4fa2-a29e-bfad346114b3&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. WA-24NCC-121-03/2023 In the matter of Sapura Energy Berhad, Sapura TMC Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Fabrication Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Offshore Sdn. Bhd, Sapura Pinewell Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Subsea Services Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Petroleum Ventures Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Drilling Probadi Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Technology Solutions Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Nautilus Sdn. Bhd., Sarku Engineering Services Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Marine Ventures Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Engineering Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Engineering (Offshore) Sdn Bhd, Sapura Geosciences Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Geosurvey Sdn. Bhd., Sapura Drilling Pte Ltd, Sapura 900 Pte Ltd, Sapura Dana SPV Pte Ltd, Sapura Subsea Corporation, Sapura 3500 Ltd, Sapura 1200 Ltd And In the matter of the proposed schemes of arrangement and compromise of Sapura Energy Berhad and its direct and indirect subsidiaries and their respective creditors And 12/01/2024 09:01:24 WA-24NCC-121-03/2023 Kand. 232 S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 In the matter of Sections 365, 366, 368, and 369 of the Companies Act 2016 And In the matter of Order 7 Rule 2, Order 28 and Order 88 of the Rules of Court 2012 BETWEEN SAPURA ENERGY BERHAD & 22 ORS ... APPLICANTS AND MARTIN BENCHER (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD ... INTERVENER JUDGMENT [1] This application concerns a creditor seeking exclusion from a proposed scheme of arrangement between debtor companies and its creditors. The creditor argues abuse in the scheme process due to there being an earlier proposed scheme application by the debtors. Another issue is whether the creditor, by previously filing proofs of debt to support its claims in the scheme, had submitted to the jurisdiction of the scheme process under the supervising court. With this consideration in mind, the court examines the creditor’s grounds for exclusion under the scheme. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Background facts [2] A settlement was agreed between the Intervener, Martin Bencher (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (“Martin Bencher”) and Sapura Energy Berhad, the First Applicant (“Sapura Energy”), Sapura Fabrication Sdn. Bhd, the Third Applicant (“Sapura Fabrication”) and Sapura Offshore Sdn. Bhd, the Fourth Applicant (“Sapura Offshore”). The three entities are referred to together as “the Sapura Entities.” [3] The settlement was to consolidate the separate debts owed to Martin Bencher into an agreed Settlement Sum of RM223,937.24, USD194,686.55 and EUR102,000 arising from two civil suits, Petaling Jaya Sessions Court Civil Suit No. BB-B52-15-10/2021 (“Suit 15”) and Shah Alam High Court Civil Suit No. BA-22NCVC-482-12/2021 (“Suit 482”) to be paid in seven monthly instalments from February to August 2022. Suit 15 concerns claims by Martin Bencher against Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore for unpaid invoices totalling RM409,242.37 for shipping and freight services provided under three contracts. Suit 482 concerns claims by Martin Bencher against Sapura Energy and Sapura Fabrication for unpaid invoices totalling RM1,140,722.60 for shipping and freight services provided under two contracts. This settlement was arrived at after an exchange of the following correspondence: a letter from the solicitors of the Sapura Entities dated 22.2.2022, a letter from Martin Bencher’s solicitors dated 22.2.2022 and a letter from the solicitors of S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 the Sapura Entities dated 23.2.2022. The agreement to settle via the exchange of the three letters is referred to as the “Settlement Agreement.” [4] The Settlement Agreement contained a condition that upon any default in payment, the full outstanding amount would become immediately payable jointly and severally by the Sapura Entities. The Settlement Sum was to be paid in instalments jointly and severally. One EUR102,000 instalment was paid after the settlement. [5] Meanwhile, Sapura Energy and 22 subsidiaries (“the Applicants”) had on 10.3.2022 obtained ex parte orders in Originating Summons WA-24-NCC-148-03/2022 (“OS 148”) to convene creditor meetings within 12 months and restraining actions against the Applicants for 3 months under sections 366 and 368 of the Companies Act 2016. OS 148 was filed as the group had gone into financial difficulties and required temporary relief from legal proceedings while they attempted to formulate a proposed scheme of arrangement with creditors to restructure the financial affairs and liabilities of the distressed group. On 8.6.2022, the orders were extended by 9 months until 10.3.2023. The orders are referred to as “the OS 148 Convening and Restraining Orders.” The Applicants subsequently invited creditors to submit proofs of debt with a cutoff date of 31.1.2022. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [6] On 18.5.2022, Martin Bencher filed proofs of debt under OS 148. On 4.11.2022, Martin Bencher also applied to intervene in OS 148 to ensure proper debt reflection and to be placed in suitable class. A consent order allowing intervention was recorded on 27.1.2023. [7] With the OS 148 Convening and Restraining Orders expiring on 10.3.2023, on 3.3.2023, The Applicants obtained fresh ex parte orders in this Originating Summons (“OS 121”) to convene creditor meetings within 3 months and restraining actions for 3 months starting 11.3.2023. These were extended by 9 months on 6.6.2023. The orders are referred to as “the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders.” On 17.1.2023, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore partially rejected Martin Bencher’s proofs of debt in OS 148 and no adjudicator review application in respect of the rejection was made. [8] On 22.6.2023 Martin Bencher applied to intervene in OS 121, seeking exclusion from the proposed scheme or if not, placement in suitable separate class. An order was recorded by consent on 12.9.2023 that leave is granted to Martin Bencher to intervene, without limitation, in respect of Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore and to be at liberty to apply for any further reliefs during the course of the proceedings. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Martin Bencher’s application [9] Martin Bencher's application in Enclosure 139 is for the following: a) Leave to intervene in the proceedings without limitation and liberty to apply for further reliefs subsequently. This was given by consent. b) For the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders dated 8.3.2023 and 6.6.2023 and any further orders to be set aside. c) For Martin Bencher to be excluded from any proposed arrangement and compromise between the Applicants and their respective creditors. d) For any losses suffered by Martin Bencher arising from or due to the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders to be assessed and paid by the Applicants. e) For costs of the application to be paid by the Applicants on a punitive basis. [10] The grounds provided for this application are: S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 a) The Applicants filed OS 121 in abuse of process and duplicity as they have a separate ongoing originating summons in OS 148. b) Through the Applicants’ own actions, Martin Bencher ought not to have been included in any scheme in the first place. Martin Bencher’s submissions [11] In summary, Martin Bencher submits that it should be granted leave to intervene as it is a creditor of the Sapura Entities based on the Settlement Agreement. [12] The proposed scheme in OS 121 and the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders should be set aside and Martin Bencher excluded as: a) There is duplicity and abuse of process due to two ongoing originating summonses, OS 121 and OS 148, simultaneously. The Applicants are “playing” both courts and if OS 148 was truly spent, it should have been withdrawn. b) Martin Bencher should not have been included in the proposed scheme in the first place per the Applicants’ own criteria, including the 31.1.2022 cutoff date for debts whereas the Settlement Agreement is dated 23.2.2022. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 c) The Applicants have maintained contradictory positions, i.e., acknowledging Martin Bencher as a creditor in OS 148 and consenting to its intervention on this basis, while simultaneously disputing Martin Bencher's similar creditor status in OS 121, thereby presenting inconsistent arguments in separate legal proceedings. [13] Martin Bencher wishes to have no part in what it terms the Applicants’ “machinations”. The Applicants’ submissions [14] In summary the Applicants submit that: a) The OS 148 Convening and Restraining Orders had expired on 10.3.2023 and were superseded by the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders. Hence there was no duplicity or abuse of process as there were no simultaneous live proceedings. b) Fresh applications for convening and restraining orders are allowed under the law. A previous scheme being superseded by a fresh scheme is also recognised by case law in various jurisdictions. c) Withdrawing OS 148 was not possible as it was spent upon expiry of the orders. In any case, granting fresh orders promotes the purpose behind S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 schemes of arrangements in saving companies from liquidation. d) Martin Bencher participated in the proof of debt exercise in OS 148 and thus subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the scheme and adjudication process which carries over to OS 121. Its status as creditor and debt claims must be determined accordingly, not in separate legal proceedings. e) Martin Bencher has been correctly classified as an unsecured creditor based on its contractual claims. The cutoff date does not apply since the Settlement Agreement only rescheduled existing debts. Analysis and findings of the court Abuse of process [15] Martin Bencher submits that the Applicants’ sole purpose in approaching this court is to secure a restraining order, as admitted in their documents. It is maintained by Martin Bencher that despite the Applicants’ claim of no duplicity, their actions in simultaneously engaging in two court proceedings indicate otherwise. Martin Bencher contends that such concurrent proceedings, particularly when one is left unresolved, constitute an abuse of the court's process, referencing the cases of Jasa Keramat Sdn. Bhd. & Anor v Monatech (M) Sdn. Bhd [2001] 4 CLJ 549 (Court of Appeal) S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 and Penang Port Commission v Kanawagi Sapura Offshore Seperumaniam [2008] 6 MLJ 686 (Court of Appeal). Furthermore, Martin Bencher argues that if the Applicants truly considered OS 148 as redundant, it should have been formally withdrawn. In light of these contentions, Martin Bencher seeks to be excluded from the scheme in OS 121 and/or the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders, distancing itself from what it perceives as judicial abuse. [16] The Applicants submit that their actions concerning OS 121 and the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders do not constitute an abuse of court process. It is maintained by the Applicants that the OS 148 Convening and Restraining Orders have expired and were rightly superseded by the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders. The Applicants contend that this transition does not equate to duplicity of proceedings, as the orders from OS 148 are no longer operative. They argue that the law does not prohibit the filing of a fresh application for convening and restraining orders, citing various cases to support their position that such actions are permissible under specific circumstances, including changes in restructuring plans. Furthermore, The Applicants emphasise that the purpose of these orders is to protect companies and their restructuring process from being derailed by individual creditors, highlighting the overarching goal of corporate rehabilitation and the avoidance of liquidation. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [17] Upon thorough examination of the submissions and supporting documents, it is clear that the OS 148 Convening and Restraining Orders, which were subject to a time-bound effectiveness, had expired on 10.3.2023. This expiry was confirmed in the decision of by Justice Adlin binti Abdul Majid, who allowed Martin Bencher to withdraw its application in OS 148, thereby acknowledging that the orders under OS 148 were no longer operative. This expiration negates Martin Bencher's argument of duplicity in proceedings, as by the time OS 121 was initiated, OS 148 had ceased to have any legal effect. [18] After considering the submissions, the court finds that the Applicants’ application under OS 121 are for fresh convening and restraining orders, as per sections 366 and 368 of the Companies Act 2016 are distinct from those granted under OS 148. The fresh application does not merely extend the previous orders but represents a new phase in the corporate restructuring process, justified by changes in the restructuring plans and the financial conditions of the company. This approach is supported by various legal precedents, including Pathfinder Strategic Credit LP v Empire Capital Resources Pte Ltd [2019] SGCA 29, a judgment from the Singapore Court of Appeal, which validate the filing of new applications under changed circumstances. In Pathfinder Strategic Credit LP, Sundaresh Menon CJ held that there was no abuse merely because there were 3 prior applications by the company: S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “[95] In that light, we consider that there is insufficient evidence in the present circumstances to warrant a finding that Empire Capital’s present leave application amounts to an abuse of process. Amongst other things, although this is the Berau Group’s fourth set of restructuring proceedings in Singapore (see [15] and [16] above), there have been genuine changes in the restructuring plans put forward in the various applications, ...”. [19] In other jurisdictions, courts have shown flexibility in allowing fresh applications for convening orders in the context of corporate restructuring schemes, particularly when previous attempts have failed due to various reasons. For instance, in Hong Kong, the case of Re Century Sun International Ltd [2022] HKCU 1890 demonstrated this approach when a scheme failure was attributed to inadequate information in the explanatory statement. Similarly, in the UK, the Re Sunbird Business Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 2860 (Ch) case allowed a renewed application of an identical scheme after the initial application was marred by the provision of misleading information by the applicant. Moreover, in Australia, the case of Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd (No. 2) [2013] FCA 965 highlighted a scenario where a scheme was abandoned due to the inability to reach a compromise with creditors, yet a fresh application was permitted. These examples illustrate a trend towards accommodating repeated efforts in corporate restructuring, provided there are valid reasons for the failure of initial attempts. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [20] Furthermore, the legislative intent behind the Companies Act 2016, as elucidated in various judicial interpretations, inclines towards facilitating corporate reorganisations to avoid liquidation. This objective is underscored by precedents like Re Hawkair Aviation Services Ltd [2006] BCJ No. 938, which interprets the Canadian CCAA as remedial legislation deserving of a liberal interpretation to facilitate arrangements between companies and creditors. Similarly, Century Services Inc v Canada (Attorney General) [2010] 3 SCR 379 and Re Welfab Engineers Ltd [1990] BCLC 833 advocate for saving businesses and considering creditors' interests. Cases from the Malaysian jurisdiction like Intrakota Komposit Sdn Bhd v Sogelease Advance (M) Sdn Bhd [2004] 8 CLJ 276 and YFG Berhad v Insanas Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2016] MLJU 664 emphasise the importance of avoiding liquidation to preserve viable businesses. Additionally, Sea Assets v Perusahaan Perseroan (Pereso) & PT Garuda Indonesia [2001] EWCA Civ. 1696 and Re T& N Ltd (No. 2) [2006] 2 BCLC 374 reflect a longstanding legislative policy favoring compromises and arrangements over liquidation. Such an approach is confirmed by Airasia X Bhd v BOC Aviation Ltd & Ors [2021] 10 MLJ 942 and Primus Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v Rin Kei Mei [2012] 1 CLJ 176, highlighting the primary objective of section 366 of the Companies Act 2016 to facilitate restructuring plans, thereby continuing business operations and benefiting creditors. Therefore, restricting applications beyond the 1-year period prescribed in section 368(1) would contradict these objectives, potentially S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 defeating the purpose of scheme provisions in the Companies Act 2016 designed to save companies. [21] The act does not explicitly prohibit consecutive applications for convening and restraining orders, provided each application is justified and meets the statutory requirements. The fresh application by the Applicants under OS 121, therefore, adheres to the spirit of the legislation, which is aimed at providing companies with an opportunity to revive and restructure in the face of financial distress. [22] The court acknowledges the fresh application by the Applicants for a restraining order pursuant to section 368(2) Companies Act 2016, even in light of the previous restraining order that had been granted and has since expired. The Companies Act 2016, in subsection (2), lays down specific conditions under which the restraining order can be granted and possibly extended. As the Applicants have presented their case, they seem to have satisfied the conditions mentioned in the Companies Act 2016. Yet, there is no reported authority concerning a fresh restraining order following the conclusion of the 3-month initial period, plus the 9-month extension, as outlined in section 368(2) of the Companies Act 2016, similar to the one procured by the Applicants in this instance. [23] Turning to the High Court case of Syed Ibrahim & Co v Trans Fame Offshore Sdn Bhd (under judicial management) [2023] 7 MLJ 399, the court dealt with a similar scenario S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 regarding the duration and expiration of a Judicial Management Order (JMO) under section 406 of the Companies Act 2016. In this case, the court adopted a purposive approach in interpreting Section 406 of the Companies Act 2016, as evidenced in Re Gold Coast Morib International Resort Sdn Bhd and another case [2021] MLJU 126. The court focused on the legislative intent, emphasising that a JMO is strictly valid for six months, extendable by another six months upon application. The use of 'shall' in the statute signifies the mandatory nature of this duration. Furthermore, the court held that if the objectives of the JMO - ensuring the company's survival or achieving a more advantageous asset realisation than in a winding-up - are not met within this timeframe, the JMO should be terminated. Despite this, the court clarified that the expiration of an initial JMO does not preclude the filing of a new judicial management application, as long as it conforms to the conditions set by the court, aligning with the purposive and pragmatic interpretation of the law. Nadzarin Wok Nordin J stated: “[17] In Re Gold Coast Morib International Resort Sdn Bhd and another case [2021] MLJU 126 this court had considered and decided the effect of s 406 of the Companies Act 2016 and held: [29] Under s 406(1) of the Companies Act 2016, the duration of the JMO is stated to be: (1) A judicial management order shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the making of the order, unless the judicial management is otherwise discharged, but the Court may, on the application of a judicial manager, S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 extend this period for another six months subject to such terms as the Court may impose. [30] By the word ‘shall’ in the said s 406(1) of the Companies Act 2016, it is clearly parliament’s intent to make it mandatory that such a JMO is to be in force or in other words, valid for a period of only six months from the date of the making of the order. Such JMO will from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the said sub section be, in this courts view, immediately terminated on such date unless the JMO is either: (a) discharged or (b) extended for a period of another 6 months on the application of a judicial manager [31] On the trite principle that parliament does not legislate in vain, and by adopting a purposive approach as to the intent of Parliament, I hold that by an examination of the language used in s 406(1) of the Companies Act 2016 and Division 8 Sub Division 2 of the Companies Act 2016 as a whole, the intent of parliament is to end the judicial management if the purpose of the JMO being to achieve the survival of the company as a going concern and/or that a more advantageous realisation of the company’s assets would be effected than on a winding up cannot be achieved within the initial six month period under s 406(1) of the Companies Act 2016. [18] From the decision in the above said case, I hold that although the initial judicial management order in OS 21 has expired on 9 December 2021, and thus the said judicial management order in OS 21 is brought to an end, I hold that the said s 406 of the Companies Act 2016 does not bar a fresh application for judicial management being made subject to the conditions this court has mentioned above.” [24] It is clear from the Syed Ibrahim & Co decision that while a JMO has a stipulated duration, the expiration of one does not, in itself, prohibit the possibility of making a fresh application. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [25] Drawing parallels between the JMO under section 406 and the restraining order under section 368(2), it can be inferred that while the legislature has mandated certain time limits, it does not necessarily imply a bar against subsequent or fresh applications. Adopting a purposive approach, this court recognises the underlying intent of the legislature, which leans towards ensuring the survival of the company in challenging times, while also safeguarding creditors' interests. The expiration of a previous order does not signify an absolute end but rather provides an opportunity for reassessment based on new circumstances and requirements. [26] In the matter of alleged non-disclosure by the Applicants regarding the inoperativeness of OS 148, it is a matter of law, not of fact, and the Applicants have made such disclosure, as evidenced in their submissions before the court dated 7.3.2023, in its ex-parte application for the convening and restraining orders. The principle of non- disclosure of material facts, as in Leadmont Development Sdn Bhd v Infra Segi Sdn Bhd [2019] 8 MLJ 473 (High Court), does not automatically result in the setting aside of an application but requires a balancing of interests. In Leadmont, the court, in considering an application for the setting aside judicial management orders, observed that applicants owed a duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte proceedings but non-disclosure does not automatically invalidate orders, which must balance interests of the company and creditors. In this case, the S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 granting of the convening and restraining orders heavily favours the larger group of creditors with substantial claims. [27] In conclusion, this court finds that the Applicants, have made a bona fide application under OS 121 for fresh convening and restraining orders, in line with the provisions of the Companies Act 2016 and supported by judicial precedents and legislative intent. The application is not an abuse of process but a legitimate exercise of the company's rights under the law, aimed at facilitating its financial restructuring and survival. Therefore, Martin Bencher’s ground to set aside the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders or to be excluded from the scheme premised on the purported abuse of process is rejected. Filing of proofs of debt in OS 148 [28] Martin Bencher submits that it is not a creditor of Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore for the pupose of the Scheme in OS 121. Martin Bencher contends that the Settlement Agreement consolidated debts owed by Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore into agreed debts and the Settlement Agreement recorded a global settlement for ongoing suits between Martin Bencher and Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore. In OS 148, the proposed scheme that was introduced invited creditors to submit proof of debts with a cutoff date of 31.1.2022. Martin Bencher stated that it complied with this in good faith and filed their Proofs of Debt S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 (“PODs”) on 18.5.2022. It also sought to intervene in OS 148 to ensure fair processes. In January 2023, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore rejected Martin Bencher's proof of debts. Now, in OS 121, the Applicants have treated Martin Bencher as a creditor for the purpose of the scheme. Martin Bencher contends that the Applicants have lodged OS 121 in an abuse of process and in duplicity of proceedings, as it has an ongoing originating summons vide OS 148. Martin Bencher argues that through the Applicants’ own actions, it ought never have been included in any scheme in the first place. [29] The central issue in this matter is therefore whether Martin Bencher should be excluded from the scheme and not bound by the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders due on the basis that its debt falls outside the specified cutoff date. Martin Bencher argues that the Settlement Agreement is dated 23.2.2022 and this postdates the cutoff date of 31.1.2022 which is now applied by the Applicants in OS 121. [30] The court will now consider whether Martin Bencher’s position is correct. [31] As a starting point to this analysis, it is important to consider the basis Martin Bencher filed its PODs in the earlier OS 148. These were filed on 18.5.2022 with the understanding that it was claiming for debts that had arisen prior to S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 31.1.2022, the cutoff date that was stipulated in the OS 148 Proposed Scheme. [32] However, Martin Bencher’s argument is that the PODs were based on a debt that it is claiming against Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore based on a consolidated and crystalised sum under the Settlement Agreement acknowledging their earlier debts. This argument cannot be sustained. This is because the proof of debt process in OS 148 did not allow for debts arising after 31.1.2022 to be claimed. Martin Bencher could not have been claiming for a debt based on the Settlement Agreement which was executed on 23.2.2022 after the cutoff date of 31.1.2022. The claim could only have been based on debts arising earlier. [33] It is important to examine the timeline of events relating to Martin Bencher’s submission of the PODs. Martin Bencher, as a scheme creditor in OS 148, submitted PODs to Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore on 18.5.2022. Subsequently, on 17.1.2023, Sapura Offshore and Sapura Fabrication issued notices of partial admission of proof of debt to Martin Bencher. These notices detailed the admitted and rejected portions of Martin Bencher's claims. [34] In Sapura Fabrication’s notice dated 17.1.2023 it was stated that Martin Bencher’s claim was partially admitted and partially rejected. The admitted claim against Sapura S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Fabrication was for an amount of RM823,669.66, equivalent to RM194,611.64 and USD150,061.55, while the rejected claim amounted to RM216,393.00, the equivalent of RM29,325.60 and USD44,625.00. The notice also included instructions for the adjudication process for the rejected claims, including the appointment of an independent adjudicator and the process for submitting an application for review. [35] In Sapura Offshore’s notice dated 17.1.2023 it was stated that a partial admission and rejection of a proof of debt claim was made by Sapura Offshore. The admitted claim amounted to RM216,393.60, equivalent to USD44,625.00 and RM29,325.60. Conversely, the rejected claim was RM823,669.66, equivalent to USD150,061.55 and RM194,611.64. The notice also outlined the adjudication process for rejected claims, including the appointment of an independent adjudicator and instructions for submitting a review application. [36] Paragraph 2.1 of the Terms of Reference for the Adjudicator in OS 148 explicitly granted Martin Bencher a 14-day window to apply to the Adjudicator to review its claims upon receiving these notices. Paragraph 2.1 reads: “2.1. A Scheme Creditor or the relevant Scheme Entity shall be entitled, within fourteen (14) calendar days of receiving the Notice of Admission or Rejection of Proof of Debt by the Chairman, to apply to the Adjudicator to review its claim (such S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Scheme Creditor as “Disputing Scheme Creditor” and such claim as “Disputed Scheme Claim”) by: (a) submitting a written request in Form A with the supporting documents, comprising a copy of: (i) the Proof of Debt submitted by the Disputing Scheme Creditor; (ii) the supporting documents submitted in support of the Proof of Debt; and (iii) the Notice of Admission or Rejection of Proof of Debt. (b) making payment of a refundable deposit of the fees of the Adjudicator in the sum representing the Adjudicator’s fees which would be payable under paragraph 4.1 below (“Disputing Scheme Creditor’s Deposit”).” [37] However, Martin Bencher chose not to avail itself of this opportunity and instead issued a letter to the Applicants’ solicitors on 30.1.2023, asserting that the rejection of its PODs was without just cause, considering it as a breach of the Settlement Agreement. [38] In response to Martin Bencher's failure to file an application for the review of its claims, the Applicants informed Martin Bencher on 9.2.2023 through their solicitor that Martin Bencher did not submit an application to review the claim by the deadline, thereby waiving their right to dispute the notices and accepting the Chairman's decision. [39] Martin Bencher argues that the Settlement Agreement is not merely a revised payment schedule of the debts of Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore but is S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 actually an agreement between Martin Bencher and Sapura Energy, Sapura Fabrication and Sapura Offshore which has legal force. However, the court does not find this to be relevant given that Martin Bencher had already submitted PODs for debts accruing before the cutoff date, thereby establishing themselves as scheme creditors and subjecting themselves to the scheme's jurisdiction in OS 148. The Industrial Court case of Ooi Wooi Song v LCI Global Sdn Bhd [2020] ILJU 74, demonstrates that a creditor who submits a proof of debt to the company constructs a legal relationship with the company to be governed by an approved scheme of arrangement, binding that creditor to the scheme. In this case, the Industrial Court held that when the claimant filed a proof of debt to the company, via the Insolvency Department, he submitted to the jurisdiction of the sanctioned scheme and was therefore bound by its terms, unable to pursue separate legal remedies for non- compliance outside the scheme. I accept this to be the correct position in law. [40] Further, by analogy in the insolvency context, the Australian Supreme Court case of Re Samgris Resources Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] QSC 126 demonstrates that by lodging a proof of debt, a potential creditor submits to the jurisdiction of a court supervised process. In this case, a creditor, APJM, had submitted a proof of debt in Samgris’ liquidation seeking to recover unpaid investments in the context of company liquidation. This proof of debt was rejected by the liquidators. By submitting the proof, APJM had submitted S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 itself to the statutory insolvency scheme for determination and resolution of creditor claims against Samgris. [41] The court held that having submitted a proof of debt, APJM was bound by the liquidators' decision to reject it, subject to APJM's right under the statute to appeal that rejection. However, APJM chose not to appeal. Further, APJM could not then dispute in separate foreign proceedings that debts were owed to it, as within the insolvency proceedings supervised by the Australian Courts, the issue of debts owed to APJM had already been conclusively determined. [42] This principle applies equally when a proof of debt is submitted in a scheme of arrangement. Filing a proof of debt constructs a legal relationship between creditor and company to have debts determined under the scheme, binding the creditor to sanctioned scheme terms. [43] In light of Martin Bencher's failure to apply for a review of its claims and the Applicants’ notification to Martin Bencher that it had effectively waived its right to dispute the rejection, Martin Bencher remained a creditor in the Scheme in OS 148. Given this position, the issue of whether the Settlement Agreement was essentially an informal exchange of letters outlining a revised payment plan for pre-existing debts or an actual Settlement Agreement with legal force is immaterial and does not alter Martin Bencher's status as a scheme creditor in OS 148, nor does it exempt Martin Bencher from the scheme’s application. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [44] As Martin Bencher remained a creditor in the OS 148 Scheme, what is the implication for Martin Bencher in OS 121? The court considers this position next. Whether Martin Bencher is subject to the scheme's jurisdiction in OS 121 [45] Next, the court addresses Martin Bencher’s arguments that the OS 148 Convening and Restraining Orders which are spent cannot apply in the subsequent OS 121. Martin Bencher posits that the OS 148 Convening and Restraining Orders are no longer inoperative and no longer enforceable by Sapura. [46] However, it is noteworthy that the Applicants have incorporated the OS 148 orders into the OS 121 Convening and Restraining Orders. In Annexure A of the Order dated 8.3.2023, in paragraphs 12 and 13 it is stipulated that the Chairman is responsible for determining the amounts owed to each Scheme Creditor for voting purposes at the Court- Convened Meetings (Para 12). For this purpose, the Chairman can consider the results of the proof of debts exercise conducted in OS 148, including admissions, rejections, and any modifications made by the Adjudicator in OS 148 (Para 13), giving the orders in OS 148 a renewed legal effect. Para 12 reads: “12. The Chairman shall determine the amounts due to each Scheme Creditor for voting purposes at the Court-Convened Meetings. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 13. For the purpose of such determination, the Chairman is entitled to rely on the outcome of the proof of debts exercise conducted in the OS No. WA-24NCC- 148-03/2022, including any admission or rejection of the proof of debts by the Chairman in the said exercise and any variation to his decision by the Adjudicator in OS No. WA-24NCC-148- 03/2022.” [47] While at first blush, this may appear contradictory and indicate multiplicity, the court does not find it to be an abuse of process but rather a streamlining of proceedings and prevents unnecessary duplication of efforts for the benefit of all creditors involved. The court acknowledges that the proof of debt process initiated in OS 148 was subsequently carried over into OS 121 for practical reasons, given the substantial number of creditors involved. This continuation of the proof of debt process effectively maintains Martin Bencher's submission to the jurisdiction of the scheme even in OS 121. Thus, Martin Bencher retains its status as a creditor for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the scheme in OS 121. [48] Martin Bencher’s assertion that it should not be included in the scheme lacks sufficient grounds to set aside the scheme. The court recognises that the inclusion of Martin Bencher in the scheme parameters was not arbitrary but based on their proof of debt submissions and their prior acceptance of the scheme's jurisdiction. Changing course now to exclude Martin Bencher from the scheme would be an inequitable and improper manoeuver. S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 Conclusion [49] In the premise, give the court’s findings that the application is not an abuse of process and Martin Bencher is subject to the scheme's jurisdiction in OS 121, Enclosure 139 is dismissed with costs. The court orders costs of RM2,000.00 against Martin Bencher. 12 January 2024 ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD Judge Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) Counsel: For the Applicants: S Suhendran, Neoh Jin Keat, Rodney Gan and Kwong Chiew Ee (Messrs Rahmat Lim & Partners) For the Intervener: Renu Zechariah with Faeqah Fuad (Messrs A.J. Chowdury) S/N NoXGOzJUokinrtNGEUsw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

02(f)-3-01/2023(P)

PERAYU ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD RESPONDEN JKP SDN BHD

1. Enforcement of the Adjudication Decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)2. Whether the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012?3. Whether an adjudicator is prohibited from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract in allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party?4. Whether the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction?

12/01/2024

YA Dato' Nordin Bin HassanKorumYAA Tan Sri Abdul Rahman bin SebliYA Dato' Mary Lim Thiam SuanYA Dato' Nordin Bin Hassan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=14ede9cf-ca81-4679-a967-742f991042f1&Inline=true

1 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) BETWEEN ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ... APPELLANT AND JKP SDN BHD ... RESPONDENT [In the matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. P-02(C)(A)-831-07/2020] Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Appellant And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Respondent (In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang) Originating Summons No. PA-24C-12-10/2019 Between Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Plaintiff And JKP Sdn Bhd ... Defendant 12/01/2024 16:18:08 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) Kand. 41 S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 (HEARD TOGETHER WITH) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-4-01/2023(P) BETWEEN ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ... APPELLANT AND JKP SDN BHD ... RESPONDENT [In the matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. P-02(C)(A)-825-07/2020] Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Appellant And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Respondent (In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang Originating Summons No. PA-24C(ARB)-4-10/2019) S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Plaintiff And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Defendant CORAM ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI, CJSS MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, FCJ NORDIN HASSAN, FCJ THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT [1] Anas Construction Sdn Bhd (‘’the appellant’’) filed two appeals before this Court against the decisions of the Court of Appeal. Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) is against the decision of the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the High Court to allow the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision dated 12.9.2019 under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”). Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-4- 01/2023(P) is against the decision of the Court of Appeal in setting aside the decision of the High Court in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the said Adjudication Decision. [2] This Court on 3.1.2023 had granted the appellant’s leave to appeal on the following questions of law, namely: S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (i) Do the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012? (ii) Whether the dicta in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 prohibit an adjudicator from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract when allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party? (iii) In a CIPAA Award, does the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction, such that the said Award ought to be set aside? The Background Facts [3] JKP Sdn Bhd (“the respondent”) appointed the appellant as the main contractor for the construction and completion of a project, for a sum of RM67,994,500 under a Construction Contract dated 9.4.2015 (“the Contract”). The project was known as “Cadangan Membina dan Menyiapkan Satu (1) Blok Pangsapuri 24 Tingkat Rumah Pangsa Kos Sederhana (392) Unit di atas Tanah Tebusguna Kerajaan, Kampung S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Pisang Awak, Seksyen 4, Bandar Jelutong, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang” (“the Project”) [4] In carrying out the Project, the appellant had engaged independent professional consultants, Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA to provide a report in regards to cracked beams and a safety report. The consultants’ fees incurred by the appellant were RM 855,074.21 (inclusive of GST 6%). However, the respondent allegedly had failed, neglected, or refused to pay the said amount resulting the matter being brought to the Adjudicator for adjudication under CIPAA. [5] The Payment Claim dated 6.3.2019 was served on the respondent by the appellant under section 5 of CIPAA for the sum of RM855,074.21, the amount claimed under the Payment Claim. [6] In the Payment Claim, the appellant pleaded clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract to establish its cause of action against the respondent. Paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Payment Claim states as follows: “32. The Amount Claim under this Payment Claim is due and payable to the Unpaid Party since 9 July 2017 read together with clauses 55, 56, 28 of the P.W.D Contract and pursuant to Section 36(3) and (4) of the CIPA Act 2012. In the absence of a contractual provision of time of payment, the amount claimed can be deemed due and payable within thirty [30] days from the date of submission of the Unpaid Party’s revised Final Claim.” S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 33. TAKE NOTICE that you, being the Non-Paying Party are required to remit to the Unpaid Party the sum of RM855,074.21 being the amount claimed under this Payment Claim and this Payment Claim is made pursuant to section 5 of CIPA Act 2012.” (emphasis added) [7] The respondent in its Payment Response dated 22.3.2019, which was made under section 6 of CIPAA and served on the appellant’s solicitor, disputed the appellant’s claim on the basis that the appellant’s claim does not fall within the meaning of “construction contract” under section 5(1) of CIPAA. Further, it was contended that in the Revised Final Draft Claim, the Professional Fees and Charges for Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA had been deleted. This is stated at paragraph 4 of the Payment Response as follows: “4. In reply to paragraph 15 of the Payment Claim, the non-paying party contends that there is a latest Revised Final Draft Claim issued by JUBM whereby the Professional Fees and Charges for the Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA for the sum of RM855,074.21 have totally been deleted.” (emphasis added) [8] Further, in the Adjudication Claim served by the appellant on the respondent pursuant to section 9(1) of CIPAA, the appellant again at paragraph 63, relied on clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract to support its claim for the professional consultants’ fees. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [9] In the Adjudication Response served by the respondent on the appellant under section 10(1) of CIPAA, the respondent contended that the relevant clause in relation to the appellant’s claim would be clause 36.5 of the Contract which was not relied upon by the appellant. [10] On 12.9.2019, pursuant to section 12(2) of CIPAA, the Adjudicator handed down the Adjudicator Decision which allowed the appellant’s claim. The adjudicator found that the appellant has proved its case on the balance of probabilities and ordered the following: (i) the respondent is to pay the appellant the outstanding amount of RM806,673.78 (excluding the GST) as sought in the Payment Claim within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of the Banker’s Cheque; (ii) interest of 5% per annum on the Adjudication Sum; (iii) the respondent is to pay the appellant the costs of the adjudication in the sum of RM11,070.88 within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of Banker’s Cheque; (iv) the respondent is to pay party-to-party costs in the sum of RM20,000 within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of the Banker’s Cheque. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [11] In coming to the Adjudication Decision to allow the appellant’s claim, the Adjudicator relied on clause 36.6 of the Contract rather than clauses 28, 55, and 56 of the Contract as submitted by the appellant in the Payment Claim and the Adjudication Claim. The Adjudicator in his Adjudication Decision found that clause 36.6 is most applicable to the appellant’s claim and not even clause 36.5 as submitted by the respondent. [12] At the High Court, the application by the appellant to enforce the Adjudication Decision under section 28 of the CIPAA was allowed by the learned High Court Judge who consequently dismissed the respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Decision. In her decision, the learned High Court judge found that the Adjudicator did not act beyond his jurisdiction and acted fairly and independently. [13] However, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the High Court was set aside on the ground that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction when deciding the adjudication on the clause of the Contract that was not relied upon by the appellant in its Payment Claim and Adjudication Claim to support its cause of action. Further, the omission of the Adjudicator to invite parties to submit on clause 36.6 of the contract relied upon by the Adjudicator to support his decision is a denial of natural justice. The High Court’s decisions in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Decision and in allowing the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision were set aside. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [14] Aggrieved with the Court of Appeal decisions, the appellant appealed against the decisions and is now before this Court for determination. The Appeal [15] Counsel for the appellant submitted that strict rules of pleadings should not apply to CIPAA proceedings which are designed to be informal, speedy, and accessible to the layman for interim and temporary reliefs. The imposition of strict rules of pleadings is incorrect on inter alia, the following grounds: (i) section 8(3) of CIPAA allows parties to be self-represented in CIPAA proceedings or be represented by laypersons such as architects or claim consultants or non-lawyers; (ii) section 13 of CIPAA states that CIPAA Proceedings is designed only as an interim forum; (iii) a Payment Claim is merely to be issued to kickstart the claim under the CIPAA regime, and not necessarily be a document to be referred to or before the Adjudicator in determining the claim. What is eventually referred to in the substantive adjudication is merely the dispute arising from the Payment Claim and Payment Response as envisaged under section 7(1) of CIPAA; S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (iv) there is no requirement under section 9(1) for the claimant to raise in the Adjudication Claim specific references, submissions, and clauses applicable in the construction contract. [16] Thus, Question 1, it was submitted, ought to be answered in the negative. [17] Next, counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no prohibition for an Adjudicator from referring to a specific clause in the Contract not stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudication Claim in allowing the claimant’s claim. Therefore, the answer to Question 2 should be in the negative. [18] Further, it was contended by counsel for the appellant that the Adjudicator’s consideration of reliance on a specific clause not mentioned in the Payment Claim and the Adjudication Claim in allowing the claim without inviting parties to submit on the application of the said clause does not amount to a breach of natural justice or an act in excess of jurisdiction. Question 3 should also be answered in the negative. [19] In the circumstances, it was submitted that both appellants’ appeals should be allowed. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [20] In response, counsel for the respondent in essence, submitted that the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is provided under section 27(1) of CIPAA and limited to matters found in sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. In other words, the Adjudicator's jurisdiction is to adjudicate matters in the Payment Claim and the Payment Response and any changes in this rule of engagement would need written consent between the parties as provided under section 27(2) of CIPAA. In this case, clause 36.6 was never relied upon by the appellant in the Payment Claim which has been the basis for the Adjudicator to allow the appellant’s claim. As such, it was argued that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction. [21] In addition, the respondent contended that the Adjudicator’s failure to invite parties to submit on the issue relating to clause 36.6 of the Contract which was the basis of the Adjudicator’s decision, amounted to a breach of natural justice. This is also grounds to set aside the Adjudication Decision as provided under section 15(b) of CIPAA. The Decision of This Court [22] In determining the present appeal before us, the main issue here is the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator as provided under CIPAA. Statutory provisions under CIPAA have provided among others the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator which is spelled out under section 27(1) as follows: “27. Jurisdiction of Adjudicator S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 1) Subject to subsection (2), the adjudicator’s jurisdiction in relation to any dispute is limited to the matter referred to adjudication by the parties pursuant to sections 5 and 6. 2) The parties to adjudication may at any time by agreement in writing extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to decide on any other matter not referred to the adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6.” (emphasis added) [23] The wording of section 27 of CIPAA is plain and unambiguous and as such, must be given its literal and ordinary meaning by the court. The intention of Parliament in its clear wording of the statute must be given its effect. [24] This court in PP v Sihabduin Haji Salleh & Anor [1981] CLJ 39; [1980] 2 MLJ 273 explained this principle of law as follows: “... to paraphrase the words of Lord Diplock at page 541 in, Duport Steels Ltd v. Sirs, 'the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral;...” (emphasis added) S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (see also Dr Koay Cheng Boon v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia [2012] 4 CLJ 445; [2012] 3 MLJ 173 (FC); Abdul Hakim bin Abdul Wahid v Mas Ermieyati binti Samsudin & Another Appeal [2023] 6 CLJ 667 (FC)] [25] The plain meaning of section 27(1) of CIPAA is that the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator is limited to matters referred to by parties to the Adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. Section 5 relates to the Payment Claim whilst section 6 relates to the Payment Response. For ease of reference, sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA are reproduced below: (i) Section 5 “5. Payment Claim 1) An unpaid party may serve a payment claim on a non-paying party for payment pursuant to a construction contract. 2) The payment claim shall be in writing and shall include— a) The amount claimed and due date for payment of the amount claimed; b) Details to identify the cause of action including the provision in the construction contract to which the payment relates; c) Description of the work or services to which the payment relates; and d) A statement that it is made under this Act. (ii) Section 6 “6. Payment Response S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 1) A non-paying party who admits to the payment claim served on him shall serve a payment response on the unpaid party together with the whole amount claimed or any amount as admitted by him. 2) A non-paying party who disputes the amount claimed in the payment claim, either wholly or partly, shall serve a payment response in writing on the unpaid party stating the amount disputed and the reason for the dispute. 3) A payment response issued under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served on the unpaid party within ten working days of the receipt of the payment claim. 4) A non-paying party who fails to respond to a payment claim in the manner provided under this section is deemed to have disputed the entire payment claim (emphasis added) [26] Section 5(b) requires the claimant to include in the Payment Claim the cause of action and the provision under the contract to which the payment relates. Thus, the claimant must identify the cause of action and the provision under the Contract that supports the cause of action. If not, the phrase ‘…including the provision in the construction contract..’ under the said subsection will be meaningless or otiose. Certainly, the Parliament does not legislate in vain (see Tony Phua Kiam Wee v Government of Malaysia & Another Appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 337 (FC); Positive Vision Labuan Ltd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals [2017] 9 CLJ 595 (FC)) S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [27] If this court were to accede to the appellant’s argument that it did not have to identify the provision in the Contract that supports its cause of action, the question may then be asked: Does the law, procedural or substantive, allow the appellant to disregard subsection 5(2)(b) which mandatorily (‘shall’) requires it to include in its payment claim the provision in the Contract to which the payment relates? I do not think so. Effect must be given to the clear intention of Parliament. [28] In any event, the cause of action in a contract must relate to a provision or provisions in the said contract to support the claim. The cause of action arises when there is a breach of a provision of the said contract or the payment becomes due under the provision of the contract. Therefore, the cause of action is subject to the agreed provisions in a contract. Thus, that is the rationale behind section 27(1) which requires the relevant provision in the contract. [29] This court in Nasri v Mesah [1971] 1 MLJ 32 had explained succinctly the meaning of cause of action and cause of action in relation to a contract in the following words: A "cause of action" is the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment (per Lord Esher MR in Read v. Brown [1888] 22 QBD 128, 131). In Reeves v. Butcher [1891] 2 QB 590, 511 Lindley LJ said: This expression, 'cause of action', has been repeatedly the subject of decision, and it has been held, particularly in Hemp v. Garland LR 4 QB 509, 511 decided in 1843, that the cause of action arises at the time when the debt could first have been recovered by action. The right to bring an action may arise on various S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 events, but it has always been held that the statute runs from the earliest time at which an action could be brought. In Board of Trade v. Cayzer, Irvine & Co. [1927] AC 610, 617. Viscount Dunedin described "cause of action" as that which makes action possible. Now, what makes possible an action founded on a contract is its breach. In other words, a cause of action founded on a contract accrues on the date of its breach. Similarly, the right to sue on a contract accrues on its breach. In the case of actions founded on contract, therefore, time runs from the breach (per Field J in Gibbs v. Guild [1881] 8 QBD 296, 302). In the case of actions founded on any other right, time runs from the date on which that right is infringed or there is a threat of its infringement (see Bolo's case LR 57 IA 325).” (emphasis added) [30] Section 27(1) of CIPAA expressly limits the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator to adjudicate matters referred to the Adjudicator to sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. This had also been acknowledged by this court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 where Zulkefli PCA said this: “[54] The principle that jurisdiction is about subject-matter applies to every statute. Thus, the CIPAA applies only to ‘construction contracts’ as defined under the Act (see ss 2, 3, and 4), and that the ‘payment dispute’ must arise under a construction contract. These are fundamental jurisdictional premises for the CIPAA to apply. Sections 5 and 6 of the CIPAA relate to this. Section 5 of the CIPAA speaks of a ‘payment pursuant to a construction contract’. By s 4 of the CIPAA, ‘payment’ is defined as ‘payment for work done … under the express terms of a construction contract’. The response under s 6 of the CIPAA has to be in relation to the ‘payment’ claim under ss 4 and 5 of the CIPAA as to whether it is admitted or disputed. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [55] By s 27(1) of the CIPAA, the arbitrator’s jurisdiction ‘is limited to the matter referred to adjudication’ pursuant to ss 5 and 6 of the CIPAA. It refers to the ‘identification of the cause of action’ in relation to the construction contract as required under s 5(2)(b) of the CIPAA. In turn, the payment response under s 6 of the CIPAA is defined and limited by the claim under s 5 of the CIPAA. [56] In short, s 27(1) of the CIPAA refers to the subject matter of the claim under s 5 of the CIPAA, which is the ‘cause of action’ identified by the claimant by reference to the applicable clause of the construction contract. Thus, if the payment claim relates to progress claim No 28 (as in the present case) the jurisdiction of the adjudicator is limited to this progress claim and nothing else. The payment response is likewise limited to an answer to progress claim No 28. [57] It can thus be said that the appellant’s case regarding the jurisdiction referred to in s 27(1) of the CIPAA, is the subject matter of the claim and the cause of action as that identified under the relevant provision of the construction contract. By s 27(2) of the CIPAA, the parties may by consent extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to cover other matters. A typical example will be that of other progress claims falling due before the adjudication commences. Section 27(1) of the CIPAA has nothing to do with the grounds of the claim or the reasons for opposing the claim.” (emphasis added) [31] In the View Esteem case, as alluded to above, emphasis was made by this court on the need to identify the applicable clause of the construction contract which relates to the cause of action. [32] The issue of the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction was also aptly observed by the learned High Court Judge (as she then was) in WRP Asia Pacific S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Sdn Bhd v NS Bluescope Lysaght Malaysia Sdn Bhd & other case [2015] 1 LNS 1236 as follows: “[27] Subsection 27(1) restricts the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to the matters found in sections 5 and 6. In short, the Adjudicator takes jurisdiction from the payment claim and the payment response; not from the adjudication claim, adjudication response, or even the adjudication reply. This is materially significant and important as this brings to bear the whole scheme of CIPAA 2012; that the adjudication proceedings is to deal with or resolve a payment dispute. That dispute is then referred to adjudication with the payment claim and payment response reduced into the formal forms as set out in sections 7 to 10. Because the parties are already in dispute mode and are aware of or familiar with their varying positions, the payment dispute is focused and intense. The Adjudicator’s sole task is to resolve that dispute for the reasons already made known between the parties; and nothing else. Any change to those rules of engagement requires a written consent between the parties and that is clear from subsection 27(2). Were it otherwise, there would be no fair play and ultimately, no confidence in the mechanism that has been so elaborately set up by Parliament. It makes no difference if there is no payment response; as the lack of a payment response simply means that the claimant who bears the burden of proving its claim anyway, has just got to get on with proving its claim.” (emphasis added) [33] At the risk of repetition, it is settled law that the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to matters referred to the Adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA. An adjudication beyond the matters referred to needs written consent from the parties as required under subsection 27(2) of the same Act. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [34] Having considered the law, I now revert to the present case. As alluded to earlier, the appellant in its Payment Claim, at paragraphs 32 and 33 claims the unpaid sum of RM855,074.21 based on clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract. For ease of reference and understanding, it is pertinent to reproduce the said clauses which are as follows: (i) Clause 28 – PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR AND INTERIM CERTIFICATES 28.1- When the contractor has executed work including delivery to or adjacent to the works of any unfixed materials or goods intended for incorporation into the works in accordance with the terms of this contract and their total value of work thereof has reached the sum referred to in Appendix, the SO shall at that time make the first valuation of the same. 28.2 – Thereafter, once (or more often at the discretion of the SO) during the course of each succeeding month the SO shall make a valuation of the works properly executed and of unfixed materials and goods delivered to or adjacent to the site, provided that the total value of work properly executed and the value of unfixed materials and goods as specified in clause 28.4 hereof, delivered to the site intended for incorporation into the works in each subsequent valuation shall not be less than the sum referred in the Appendix. 28.3 – Within fourteen (14) days from the date of any such valuation being made and subject to the provision mentioned in clause 28.1, the SO shall issue an Interim Certificate stating the amount due to the contractor. PROVIDED THAT the signing of this contract shall not be a condition precedent for the issue of the first Interim Certificate (and no other) so long as the Contractor has returned the Letter of Acceptance of tender duly signed and has deposited with the SO or the relevant insurance policies under clauses 15 and 18 hereof. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 28.4 – The amount stated as due in an Interim Certificate shall, subject to any agreement between the parties as to payment by stages, be the estimated total value of the work properly executed and up to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the unfixed materials and goods delivered to or date the valuation was made, less any payment (including advance payment) previously made paid under this Contract. PROVIDED THAT such certificate shall only include the value of the said unfixed materials and goods as and from such time as they are reasonably and properly and not prematurely delivered to or adjacent to the site and adequately protected against weather, damage, and deterioration. 28.5 – This clause shall not apply to any unfixed materials and goods which are supplied and delivered by the Nominated Suppliers for which payment shall be made for the full value of the unfixed materials and goods. 28.6 – Within a number of days as stated in Appendix (or if none stated then within thirty (30) days of the issue of any such Interim Certificate), the Government shall make a payment to the Contractor as follows: (a) where the Performance Bond is in the form of a Banker’s, Insurance, or Finance Company Guarantee, payment shall be made on the amount certified as due to the contractor in the said Interim Certificate; or (b) where the Performance Bond is in the form of a Performance Guarantee Sum; payment of the ninety percent (90%) on the amount certified as due to the contractor shall be made with the remaining ten percent (10%) being retained by the Government as a Performance Guarantee Sum. PROVIDED THAT when the sum retained is equivalent to five percent (5%) of the contract sum then in any subsequent Certificate, payment shall be made on the full amount certified as due to the Contractor. (ii) Clause 55 – EVENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF DEFAULT BY GOVERNMENT Default of Obligations S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (a) Events of Default If the Government without any reasonable cause fails to perform or fulfil any of its obligations which adversely affects the Works, then the Contractor may issue a notice specifying the default of the Government and requiring the Government to remedy the same within the period specified therein taking into account the nature of the remedy to be carried out by JKP Sdn Bhd or such other period as may be agreed by both Parties from the date of receipt of such notice. (b) Termination If JKP Sdn Bhd fails to remedy the default period specified in such notice issued under clause 55 (a) within the stipulated time therein, the Contractor shall have the right to forthwith terminate this Contract by giving written notice to the effect. (c) Consequences of Termination If this Contract is terminated under clause 55(b) (i) JKP Sdn Bhd shall pay to the Contractor – (a) the value of the Works carried out up to the date of termination; (b) the amounts payable in respect of any preliminary items so far as the work or service comprised therein has been carried out or performed and a proper proportion of any such items which have been partially carried out or performed; (c) the cost of materials or goods reasonably ordered for the Works which have been delivered to the contractor or of which the Contractor is legally liable to accept delivery (such materials or goods becoming the property of the Government upon such payment being made to the Contractor); and S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (d) a sum being the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the Contractor in so far as such expenditure has not been recovered by any other payments referred to in this sub-clause. (ii) For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties hereby agree that the Contractor shall not be entitled to any other form of losses including loss of profit, damages, claims, or whatsoever upon termination of this contract. (iii) Clause 56 – CERTIFICATE OF TERMINATION COSTS 56.1 - As soon as the arrangements for the completion of the Works made by the JKP Sdn Bhd enable the SO to make a reasonable accurate assessment of the ultimate cost of completing the Works following the termination of the Contractor’s employment and the engagement of other contractors or persons, and the amount of direct loss and/or damage caused to the Government due to the termination has been ascertained by the SO, then the SO may issue a certificate (hereinafter referred to as the “certificate of Termination Costs”) stating the completion Cost (herein defined) and the Final Contract Sum (hereinafter defined). 56.2 – The Completion Cost comprises the following sums, cost or expenditure: (a) the sums previously paid to the Contractor by JKP Sdn Bhd; (b) the sums paid or payable to other contractors or persons engaged to complete the Works; (c) any sums paid to sub-contractors or suppliers under clause 61 (d) any costs or expenditures incurred or to be incurred including On-Cost Charges incurred by JKP Sdn Bhd in completing the Works; and S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 (e) the amount of direct loss and/or damage caused to JKP Sdn Bhd due to the termination. 56.3 – The Final Contract Sum comprises of the following amounts or sums: (a) the amount which would have been payable under the Contract on the completion in accordance with the Contract, allowing any variations or other matters which would have resulted in an adjustment of the original Contract Sum; and (b) any other sums which JKP Sdn Bhd might be entitled under the terms of the Contract to deduct from the original Contract Sums, had the Contractor’s employment not been terminated. 56.4 The certification of Termination Costs shall state the difference between the Final Contract Sum and the Completion Cost. If the Final Contract Sum is less than the Completion Cost, the difference shall be the debt payable by the Contractor to the Government to the Contractor. 56.5 – The Certificate of Termination Costs shall be binding and conclusive on the Contractor as to the amount of such loss or damage specified therein. 56.6 - In the event the completion of the Works being undertaken departmentally, allowance shall be made, when ascertaining the amount to be certified as costs and expense incurred by the Government, for cost of supervision, interest, and depreciation on plant and all other usual overhead charges and profit as would be incurred if the works were completed by other contractors or persons. [35] However, the Adjudicator in this case, in his Adjudication Decision held that the most applicable clause for the appellant’s claim against the respondent is clause 36.6 of the Contract and allowed the claim based on S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 the said clause. In the Adjudication Decisions at paragraphs 100, and 101 this was said: “100. The respondent argued that the correct and crucial provision of the Contract is Clause 36.5 of the COC and that the Claimant has not invoking (sic) this provision in support of its claim. However, in my considered opinion, Clause 36.6 of COC are the one most applicable to the Claimant’s claim. Clause 36.6 of COC which provides as below: “36.6 Notwithstanding anything in clause 36.5, if the Contractor carries out any further test as required by the SO pursuant to clause 36.2 and the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials is not in accordance with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by the Contractor. But if the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials comply with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by JKP Sdn Bhd. (emphasis added).” 101. Clearly and certainly, in order to succeed the claim pursuant on the above clause, the burden is on the Claimant to show a cogent proof of whether the Claimant has received any instruction or direction by the Respondent or Respondent’s consultants under the Contract at the material time.” [36] Further, at paragraphs 104 and 105 of the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator states this: “104. As the Independent Consultants i.e. the Professional Engineer has certified and endorsed the building is safe and this would have meant that the Claimant has carried out the construction work are in accordance with the Contract. This is opposing to what allegation put forth by the Respondent that the construction S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 works carried out by the Claimant are not in accordance with the Contract and that had compromised the safety of the building. Therefore, pursuant to Clause 36.6 of the COC which further provides as below: “But if the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials comply with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by the JKP Sdn Bhd.” …… 105. By foregoing reason and considering all the facts and circumstances available to me, I am hold (sic) to determine that the Claimant has proved, on the balance of probabilities, and that the Respondent shall pay the cost of the Independent Consultants which engaged by the Claimant in produce the relevant report as instructed by the respondent’s consultants. (emphasis added) [37] Reading the paragraphs of the Adjudication Decision alluded to above, it is undoubtedly that the Adjudicator had relied on clause 36.6 of the Contract in allowing the appellant’s claim. This clause was not relied upon by the appellant in the Payment Claim filed under section 5 to establish its claim, nor mentioned by the respondent in the Payment Response filed under section 6 of CIPAA. In addition, having perused the Adjudication decision, there is nowhere to show that the Adjudicator relied on clauses 28, 55, or 56 of the Contract which were the provisions relied upon by the appellant in its Payment Claim to establish its cause of action. [38] As the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to matters referred to the Adjudicator under sections 5 and 6, and the cause of action based on S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 clause 36.6 was not relied upon in the Payment Claim, the Adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the dispute based on clause 36.6 of the Contract. The cause of action under clause 36.6 was not the appellant’s case in the Payment Claim or the respondent rebuttal in the Payment Response. [39] In our neighbouring country, Singapore, the Adjudicator is also clothed with the same limited jurisdiction as provided under section 17(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed). In explaining the application of the said provision, Sundaresh Menon CJ in WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 said this: “46. This subsection sets out what an adjudicator is permitted to consider and expressly provides that he “shall only have regard to [those] matters” [40] Likewise in the present case, section 27(1) has expressly limited the Adjudicator to adjudicate only matters pursuant to sections 5 and 6, not any other matters which have been discussed earlier. [41] Moreover, both parties have not given written consent to extend the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters relying on the cause of action established in clause 36.6 of the Contract as required under section 27(2) of CIPAA. In my view, if the Adjudicator finds that the cause of action was established under a different clause of the Contract, as in the present S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 case, the matter should be brought to the attention of the parties and if agrees, written consent be issued under section 27(2) to clothe the Adjudicator with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters based on the cause of action under clause 36.6. [42] On this ground of want of jurisdiction alone, the Adjudication Decision cannot stand. The Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction and ground to set aside the Adjudication Decision under section 15(d) of CIPAA which states: “15. Improperly Procured Adjudication Decision An aggrieved party may apply to the High Court to set aside an adjudication decision on one or more of the following grounds: a) The adjudication decision was improperly procured through fraud or bribery; b) There has been a denial of natural justice; c) The adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially; or d) The adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction.” (emphasis added) [43] The next issue before this Court is whether there was a denial of natural justice when parties in the present case were not given the right to be heard on the application of clause 36.6 which was the Adjudicator’s S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 basis for allowing the appellant’s claim. The denial of natural justice is also a ground to challenge the Adjudication Decision provided under section 15(b) of CIPAA. [44] The concept of natural justice is well settled that parties must be given the right to be heard before a decision is made. A judge should not decide on an issue which was not pleaded and it is not the duty of the court to create a cause of action under the guise of doing justice. This court in Pacific Forest Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor v Lin Wen-Chih & Anor [2009] 6 CLJ 430 reiterated this principle as follows: “[16] The court also decides a case after considering the evidence adduced by each party and documents produced by them. Neither party should be taken by surprise. Even in respect of law, whether it is the court at first instance or the appellate court, judges rely heavily on the submissions put forward by the respective counsel. A good counsel is one who produces authorities to support the statement of law he is relying upon. The authorities can be in the form of reported judgments, text books, or even published law articles. In fact, according to etiquette, he is supposed to even bring to the attention of the court authorities which favour his opponent’s case. Of course, in such an instance, he would then distinguish the facts of the case before the court to the case in the authority. It is therefore dangerous and totally unadvisable, for the court, on its own accord, to consider any point without reliance on any pleadings or submission by counsel appearing before them. If the learned judge thinks there are any points which are relevant to the case before him and which was not raised by either party, it is his duty to highlight that to the parties before him. He must then give an opportunity for both parties to further submit on that particular point. There have been instances where a judge may already form some opinion on certain issues, legal or otherwise, but S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 after hearing submissions and views expressed by a party, he may conclude differently. [17] The effect of a judge making a decision on an issue not based on the pleadings and without hearing the parties on that particular issue would be in breach of the latin maxim audi alteram partem, which literally means, to hear the other side, a basic principle of natural justice.” (emphasis added) [45] The same principle was acknowledged by this Court in Dato’ Tan Chin Woh v Dato’ Yalumallai V Muthusamy [2016] 8 CLJ 293 and further said this: “[21] It is thus clear that whenever the court proposes to consider a fresh issue which the court considers pertinent to the case before it, it should give the parties the right to make submissions on the proposed issue before arriving at its finding. This is fundamental in the adversarial system that we practice in this country.” (emphasis added) [46] Further, on the concept of natural justice, Tengku Maimun CJ in Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] 1 MLJ 750 at page 825 said this: [188] In simpler terms, natural justice which encapsulates the twin concepts of nemo judex in causa sua (the rule against bias) and audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), are integral features of a written constitution which protects S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 fundamental liberties. Both rights are equally important but for the purpose of this judgment, particular emphasis is given to the right to be heard. On that right, Bhagwati J observed in Maneka Gandhi that ‘the soul of natural justice is fair-play in action and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world’. (emphasis added) [47] Reverting to the present case, it is undisputed that parties were not given the opportunity to submit the cause of action under clause 36.6 of the Contract before the Adjudication decision was handed down. Besides the principle of the right to be heard, the submission by parties as highlighted in the Pacific Forest case, may persuade the judge or in the present case, the Adjudicator, to decide differently. The principle of natural justice includes allowing parties to present their case effectively. [48] In an old case, Semtex v Gladstone [1954] 2 All ER 206 at page 212, Finnemore J said this: “Natural justice requires that the appellant be given a full and adequate hearing, and opportunity to give evidence on behalf of himself if he so desires and to call such witnesses as he considers necessary for his case…Natural justice is not something which any one of us can define in our own terms. It is basic. (emphasis added) S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [49] In the circumstances, I find, the non-giving of the opportunity by the Adjudicator for the parties to submit or canvass the issue of cause of action under clause 36.6 before making the decision, is a denial of natural justice. [50] In the present case, the main question is whether the applicant’s cause of action established under any of the clauses in the Contract and pleaded in the Payment Claim are matters adjudicated by the Adjudicator as mandated under section 27(1) of CIPAA. The issue of strict rules of pleading in civil claims to be complied with does not arise and is misplaced as section 27(1) has underlined the limited jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to adjudicate matters referred to the Adjudicator under section 5, that is the Payment Claim and section 6, which is the Payment Response. The answer to this main question is in the negative. [51] Based on the analysis and views mentioned above, I find it unnecessary to answer the questions posed by the appellant for me to decide on this appeal. Conclusion [52] In the circumstances, both the appellant’s appeals are dismissed and the decisions of the Court of Appeal are affirmed. The appellant is to pay costs to the respondent in the sum of RM60,000.00 subject to S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 payment of the allocator. The Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak (CJSS) has read this judgment in the draft and has agreed to it. My learned sister Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan is dissenting. Dated 8 January 2024 - sgd - (DATO’ NORDIN BIN HASSAN) Judge Federal Court of Malaysia Counsel: For the Appellant: Ong Yu Shin Ong (Lee Hooi Ying & Lim Wooi Ying with him) [Messrs. The Chambers of Yu Shin Ong] For the Respondent: Dato’ Seri Mahinder Singh Dulku (Dato’ Abdul Fareed bin Abdul Gafoor & Farah Nabilah binti Shaharuddin with him) [Messrs. Ezrilaw Firm] S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

02(f)-3-01/2023(P)

PERAYU ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD RESPONDEN JKP SDN BHD

1. Enforcement of the Adjudication Decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)2. Whether the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012?3. Whether an adjudicator is prohibited from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract in allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party?4. Whether the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction?

12/01/2024

YA Dato' Nordin Bin HassanKorumYAA Tan Sri Abdul Rahman bin SebliYA Dato' Mary Lim Thiam SuanYA Dato' Nordin Bin Hassan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=14ede9cf-ca81-4679-a967-742f991042f1&Inline=true

1 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) BETWEEN ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ... APPELLANT AND JKP SDN BHD ... RESPONDENT [In the matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. P-02(C)(A)-831-07/2020] Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Appellant And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Respondent (In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang) Originating Summons No. PA-24C-12-10/2019 Between Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Plaintiff And JKP Sdn Bhd ... Defendant 12/01/2024 16:18:08 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) Kand. 41 S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 (HEARD TOGETHER WITH) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-4-01/2023(P) BETWEEN ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ... APPELLANT AND JKP SDN BHD ... RESPONDENT [In the matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. P-02(C)(A)-825-07/2020] Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Appellant And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Respondent (In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang Originating Summons No. PA-24C(ARB)-4-10/2019) S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Plaintiff And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Defendant CORAM ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI, CJSS MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, FCJ NORDIN HASSAN, FCJ THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT [1] Anas Construction Sdn Bhd (‘’the appellant’’) filed two appeals before this Court against the decisions of the Court of Appeal. Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) is against the decision of the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the High Court to allow the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision dated 12.9.2019 under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”). Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-4- 01/2023(P) is against the decision of the Court of Appeal in setting aside the decision of the High Court in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the said Adjudication Decision. [2] This Court on 3.1.2023 had granted the appellant’s leave to appeal on the following questions of law, namely: S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (i) Do the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012? (ii) Whether the dicta in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 prohibit an adjudicator from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract when allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party? (iii) In a CIPAA Award, does the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction, such that the said Award ought to be set aside? The Background Facts [3] JKP Sdn Bhd (“the respondent”) appointed the appellant as the main contractor for the construction and completion of a project, for a sum of RM67,994,500 under a Construction Contract dated 9.4.2015 (“the Contract”). The project was known as “Cadangan Membina dan Menyiapkan Satu (1) Blok Pangsapuri 24 Tingkat Rumah Pangsa Kos Sederhana (392) Unit di atas Tanah Tebusguna Kerajaan, Kampung S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Pisang Awak, Seksyen 4, Bandar Jelutong, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang” (“the Project”) [4] In carrying out the Project, the appellant had engaged independent professional consultants, Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA to provide a report in regards to cracked beams and a safety report. The consultants’ fees incurred by the appellant were RM 855,074.21 (inclusive of GST 6%). However, the respondent allegedly had failed, neglected, or refused to pay the said amount resulting the matter being brought to the Adjudicator for adjudication under CIPAA. [5] The Payment Claim dated 6.3.2019 was served on the respondent by the appellant under section 5 of CIPAA for the sum of RM855,074.21, the amount claimed under the Payment Claim. [6] In the Payment Claim, the appellant pleaded clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract to establish its cause of action against the respondent. Paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Payment Claim states as follows: “32. The Amount Claim under this Payment Claim is due and payable to the Unpaid Party since 9 July 2017 read together with clauses 55, 56, 28 of the P.W.D Contract and pursuant to Section 36(3) and (4) of the CIPA Act 2012. In the absence of a contractual provision of time of payment, the amount claimed can be deemed due and payable within thirty [30] days from the date of submission of the Unpaid Party’s revised Final Claim.” S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 33. TAKE NOTICE that you, being the Non-Paying Party are required to remit to the Unpaid Party the sum of RM855,074.21 being the amount claimed under this Payment Claim and this Payment Claim is made pursuant to section 5 of CIPA Act 2012.” (emphasis added) [7] The respondent in its Payment Response dated 22.3.2019, which was made under section 6 of CIPAA and served on the appellant’s solicitor, disputed the appellant’s claim on the basis that the appellant’s claim does not fall within the meaning of “construction contract” under section 5(1) of CIPAA. Further, it was contended that in the Revised Final Draft Claim, the Professional Fees and Charges for Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA had been deleted. This is stated at paragraph 4 of the Payment Response as follows: “4. In reply to paragraph 15 of the Payment Claim, the non-paying party contends that there is a latest Revised Final Draft Claim issued by JUBM whereby the Professional Fees and Charges for the Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA for the sum of RM855,074.21 have totally been deleted.” (emphasis added) [8] Further, in the Adjudication Claim served by the appellant on the respondent pursuant to section 9(1) of CIPAA, the appellant again at paragraph 63, relied on clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract to support its claim for the professional consultants’ fees. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [9] In the Adjudication Response served by the respondent on the appellant under section 10(1) of CIPAA, the respondent contended that the relevant clause in relation to the appellant’s claim would be clause 36.5 of the Contract which was not relied upon by the appellant. [10] On 12.9.2019, pursuant to section 12(2) of CIPAA, the Adjudicator handed down the Adjudicator Decision which allowed the appellant’s claim. The adjudicator found that the appellant has proved its case on the balance of probabilities and ordered the following: (i) the respondent is to pay the appellant the outstanding amount of RM806,673.78 (excluding the GST) as sought in the Payment Claim within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of the Banker’s Cheque; (ii) interest of 5% per annum on the Adjudication Sum; (iii) the respondent is to pay the appellant the costs of the adjudication in the sum of RM11,070.88 within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of Banker’s Cheque; (iv) the respondent is to pay party-to-party costs in the sum of RM20,000 within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of the Banker’s Cheque. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [11] In coming to the Adjudication Decision to allow the appellant’s claim, the Adjudicator relied on clause 36.6 of the Contract rather than clauses 28, 55, and 56 of the Contract as submitted by the appellant in the Payment Claim and the Adjudication Claim. The Adjudicator in his Adjudication Decision found that clause 36.6 is most applicable to the appellant’s claim and not even clause 36.5 as submitted by the respondent. [12] At the High Court, the application by the appellant to enforce the Adjudication Decision under section 28 of the CIPAA was allowed by the learned High Court Judge who consequently dismissed the respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Decision. In her decision, the learned High Court judge found that the Adjudicator did not act beyond his jurisdiction and acted fairly and independently. [13] However, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the High Court was set aside on the ground that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction when deciding the adjudication on the clause of the Contract that was not relied upon by the appellant in its Payment Claim and Adjudication Claim to support its cause of action. Further, the omission of the Adjudicator to invite parties to submit on clause 36.6 of the contract relied upon by the Adjudicator to support his decision is a denial of natural justice. The High Court’s decisions in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Decision and in allowing the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision were set aside. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [14] Aggrieved with the Court of Appeal decisions, the appellant appealed against the decisions and is now before this Court for determination. The Appeal [15] Counsel for the appellant submitted that strict rules of pleadings should not apply to CIPAA proceedings which are designed to be informal, speedy, and accessible to the layman for interim and temporary reliefs. The imposition of strict rules of pleadings is incorrect on inter alia, the following grounds: (i) section 8(3) of CIPAA allows parties to be self-represented in CIPAA proceedings or be represented by laypersons such as architects or claim consultants or non-lawyers; (ii) section 13 of CIPAA states that CIPAA Proceedings is designed only as an interim forum; (iii) a Payment Claim is merely to be issued to kickstart the claim under the CIPAA regime, and not necessarily be a document to be referred to or before the Adjudicator in determining the claim. What is eventually referred to in the substantive adjudication is merely the dispute arising from the Payment Claim and Payment Response as envisaged under section 7(1) of CIPAA; S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (iv) there is no requirement under section 9(1) for the claimant to raise in the Adjudication Claim specific references, submissions, and clauses applicable in the construction contract. [16] Thus, Question 1, it was submitted, ought to be answered in the negative. [17] Next, counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no prohibition for an Adjudicator from referring to a specific clause in the Contract not stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudication Claim in allowing the claimant’s claim. Therefore, the answer to Question 2 should be in the negative. [18] Further, it was contended by counsel for the appellant that the Adjudicator’s consideration of reliance on a specific clause not mentioned in the Payment Claim and the Adjudication Claim in allowing the claim without inviting parties to submit on the application of the said clause does not amount to a breach of natural justice or an act in excess of jurisdiction. Question 3 should also be answered in the negative. [19] In the circumstances, it was submitted that both appellants’ appeals should be allowed. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [20] In response, counsel for the respondent in essence, submitted that the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is provided under section 27(1) of CIPAA and limited to matters found in sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. In other words, the Adjudicator's jurisdiction is to adjudicate matters in the Payment Claim and the Payment Response and any changes in this rule of engagement would need written consent between the parties as provided under section 27(2) of CIPAA. In this case, clause 36.6 was never relied upon by the appellant in the Payment Claim which has been the basis for the Adjudicator to allow the appellant’s claim. As such, it was argued that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction. [21] In addition, the respondent contended that the Adjudicator’s failure to invite parties to submit on the issue relating to clause 36.6 of the Contract which was the basis of the Adjudicator’s decision, amounted to a breach of natural justice. This is also grounds to set aside the Adjudication Decision as provided under section 15(b) of CIPAA. The Decision of This Court [22] In determining the present appeal before us, the main issue here is the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator as provided under CIPAA. Statutory provisions under CIPAA have provided among others the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator which is spelled out under section 27(1) as follows: “27. Jurisdiction of Adjudicator S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 1) Subject to subsection (2), the adjudicator’s jurisdiction in relation to any dispute is limited to the matter referred to adjudication by the parties pursuant to sections 5 and 6. 2) The parties to adjudication may at any time by agreement in writing extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to decide on any other matter not referred to the adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6.” (emphasis added) [23] The wording of section 27 of CIPAA is plain and unambiguous and as such, must be given its literal and ordinary meaning by the court. The intention of Parliament in its clear wording of the statute must be given its effect. [24] This court in PP v Sihabduin Haji Salleh & Anor [1981] CLJ 39; [1980] 2 MLJ 273 explained this principle of law as follows: “... to paraphrase the words of Lord Diplock at page 541 in, Duport Steels Ltd v. Sirs, 'the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral;...” (emphasis added) S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (see also Dr Koay Cheng Boon v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia [2012] 4 CLJ 445; [2012] 3 MLJ 173 (FC); Abdul Hakim bin Abdul Wahid v Mas Ermieyati binti Samsudin & Another Appeal [2023] 6 CLJ 667 (FC)] [25] The plain meaning of section 27(1) of CIPAA is that the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator is limited to matters referred to by parties to the Adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. Section 5 relates to the Payment Claim whilst section 6 relates to the Payment Response. For ease of reference, sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA are reproduced below: (i) Section 5 “5. Payment Claim 1) An unpaid party may serve a payment claim on a non-paying party for payment pursuant to a construction contract. 2) The payment claim shall be in writing and shall include— a) The amount claimed and due date for payment of the amount claimed; b) Details to identify the cause of action including the provision in the construction contract to which the payment relates; c) Description of the work or services to which the payment relates; and d) A statement that it is made under this Act. (ii) Section 6 “6. Payment Response S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 1) A non-paying party who admits to the payment claim served on him shall serve a payment response on the unpaid party together with the whole amount claimed or any amount as admitted by him. 2) A non-paying party who disputes the amount claimed in the payment claim, either wholly or partly, shall serve a payment response in writing on the unpaid party stating the amount disputed and the reason for the dispute. 3) A payment response issued under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served on the unpaid party within ten working days of the receipt of the payment claim. 4) A non-paying party who fails to respond to a payment claim in the manner provided under this section is deemed to have disputed the entire payment claim (emphasis added) [26] Section 5(b) requires the claimant to include in the Payment Claim the cause of action and the provision under the contract to which the payment relates. Thus, the claimant must identify the cause of action and the provision under the Contract that supports the cause of action. If not, the phrase ‘…including the provision in the construction contract..’ under the said subsection will be meaningless or otiose. Certainly, the Parliament does not legislate in vain (see Tony Phua Kiam Wee v Government of Malaysia & Another Appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 337 (FC); Positive Vision Labuan Ltd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals [2017] 9 CLJ 595 (FC)) S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [27] If this court were to accede to the appellant’s argument that it did not have to identify the provision in the Contract that supports its cause of action, the question may then be asked: Does the law, procedural or substantive, allow the appellant to disregard subsection 5(2)(b) which mandatorily (‘shall’) requires it to include in its payment claim the provision in the Contract to which the payment relates? I do not think so. Effect must be given to the clear intention of Parliament. [28] In any event, the cause of action in a contract must relate to a provision or provisions in the said contract to support the claim. The cause of action arises when there is a breach of a provision of the said contract or the payment becomes due under the provision of the contract. Therefore, the cause of action is subject to the agreed provisions in a contract. Thus, that is the rationale behind section 27(1) which requires the relevant provision in the contract. [29] This court in Nasri v Mesah [1971] 1 MLJ 32 had explained succinctly the meaning of cause of action and cause of action in relation to a contract in the following words: A "cause of action" is the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment (per Lord Esher MR in Read v. Brown [1888] 22 QBD 128, 131). In Reeves v. Butcher [1891] 2 QB 590, 511 Lindley LJ said: This expression, 'cause of action', has been repeatedly the subject of decision, and it has been held, particularly in Hemp v. Garland LR 4 QB 509, 511 decided in 1843, that the cause of action arises at the time when the debt could first have been recovered by action. The right to bring an action may arise on various S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 events, but it has always been held that the statute runs from the earliest time at which an action could be brought. In Board of Trade v. Cayzer, Irvine & Co. [1927] AC 610, 617. Viscount Dunedin described "cause of action" as that which makes action possible. Now, what makes possible an action founded on a contract is its breach. In other words, a cause of action founded on a contract accrues on the date of its breach. Similarly, the right to sue on a contract accrues on its breach. In the case of actions founded on contract, therefore, time runs from the breach (per Field J in Gibbs v. Guild [1881] 8 QBD 296, 302). In the case of actions founded on any other right, time runs from the date on which that right is infringed or there is a threat of its infringement (see Bolo's case LR 57 IA 325).” (emphasis added) [30] Section 27(1) of CIPAA expressly limits the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator to adjudicate matters referred to the Adjudicator to sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. This had also been acknowledged by this court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 where Zulkefli PCA said this: “[54] The principle that jurisdiction is about subject-matter applies to every statute. Thus, the CIPAA applies only to ‘construction contracts’ as defined under the Act (see ss 2, 3, and 4), and that the ‘payment dispute’ must arise under a construction contract. These are fundamental jurisdictional premises for the CIPAA to apply. Sections 5 and 6 of the CIPAA relate to this. Section 5 of the CIPAA speaks of a ‘payment pursuant to a construction contract’. By s 4 of the CIPAA, ‘payment’ is defined as ‘payment for work done … under the express terms of a construction contract’. The response under s 6 of the CIPAA has to be in relation to the ‘payment’ claim under ss 4 and 5 of the CIPAA as to whether it is admitted or disputed. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [55] By s 27(1) of the CIPAA, the arbitrator’s jurisdiction ‘is limited to the matter referred to adjudication’ pursuant to ss 5 and 6 of the CIPAA. It refers to the ‘identification of the cause of action’ in relation to the construction contract as required under s 5(2)(b) of the CIPAA. In turn, the payment response under s 6 of the CIPAA is defined and limited by the claim under s 5 of the CIPAA. [56] In short, s 27(1) of the CIPAA refers to the subject matter of the claim under s 5 of the CIPAA, which is the ‘cause of action’ identified by the claimant by reference to the applicable clause of the construction contract. Thus, if the payment claim relates to progress claim No 28 (as in the present case) the jurisdiction of the adjudicator is limited to this progress claim and nothing else. The payment response is likewise limited to an answer to progress claim No 28. [57] It can thus be said that the appellant’s case regarding the jurisdiction referred to in s 27(1) of the CIPAA, is the subject matter of the claim and the cause of action as that identified under the relevant provision of the construction contract. By s 27(2) of the CIPAA, the parties may by consent extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to cover other matters. A typical example will be that of other progress claims falling due before the adjudication commences. Section 27(1) of the CIPAA has nothing to do with the grounds of the claim or the reasons for opposing the claim.” (emphasis added) [31] In the View Esteem case, as alluded to above, emphasis was made by this court on the need to identify the applicable clause of the construction contract which relates to the cause of action. [32] The issue of the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction was also aptly observed by the learned High Court Judge (as she then was) in WRP Asia Pacific S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Sdn Bhd v NS Bluescope Lysaght Malaysia Sdn Bhd & other case [2015] 1 LNS 1236 as follows: “[27] Subsection 27(1) restricts the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to the matters found in sections 5 and 6. In short, the Adjudicator takes jurisdiction from the payment claim and the payment response; not from the adjudication claim, adjudication response, or even the adjudication reply. This is materially significant and important as this brings to bear the whole scheme of CIPAA 2012; that the adjudication proceedings is to deal with or resolve a payment dispute. That dispute is then referred to adjudication with the payment claim and payment response reduced into the formal forms as set out in sections 7 to 10. Because the parties are already in dispute mode and are aware of or familiar with their varying positions, the payment dispute is focused and intense. The Adjudicator’s sole task is to resolve that dispute for the reasons already made known between the parties; and nothing else. Any change to those rules of engagement requires a written consent between the parties and that is clear from subsection 27(2). Were it otherwise, there would be no fair play and ultimately, no confidence in the mechanism that has been so elaborately set up by Parliament. It makes no difference if there is no payment response; as the lack of a payment response simply means that the claimant who bears the burden of proving its claim anyway, has just got to get on with proving its claim.” (emphasis added) [33] At the risk of repetition, it is settled law that the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to matters referred to the Adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA. An adjudication beyond the matters referred to needs written consent from the parties as required under subsection 27(2) of the same Act. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [34] Having considered the law, I now revert to the present case. As alluded to earlier, the appellant in its Payment Claim, at paragraphs 32 and 33 claims the unpaid sum of RM855,074.21 based on clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract. For ease of reference and understanding, it is pertinent to reproduce the said clauses which are as follows: (i) Clause 28 – PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR AND INTERIM CERTIFICATES 28.1- When the contractor has executed work including delivery to or adjacent to the works of any unfixed materials or goods intended for incorporation into the works in accordance with the terms of this contract and their total value of work thereof has reached the sum referred to in Appendix, the SO shall at that time make the first valuation of the same. 28.2 – Thereafter, once (or more often at the discretion of the SO) during the course of each succeeding month the SO shall make a valuation of the works properly executed and of unfixed materials and goods delivered to or adjacent to the site, provided that the total value of work properly executed and the value of unfixed materials and goods as specified in clause 28.4 hereof, delivered to the site intended for incorporation into the works in each subsequent valuation shall not be less than the sum referred in the Appendix. 28.3 – Within fourteen (14) days from the date of any such valuation being made and subject to the provision mentioned in clause 28.1, the SO shall issue an Interim Certificate stating the amount due to the contractor. PROVIDED THAT the signing of this contract shall not be a condition precedent for the issue of the first Interim Certificate (and no other) so long as the Contractor has returned the Letter of Acceptance of tender duly signed and has deposited with the SO or the relevant insurance policies under clauses 15 and 18 hereof. S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 28.4 – The amount stated as due in an Interim Certificate shall, subject to any agreement between the parties as to payment by stages, be the estimated total value of the work properly executed and up to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the unfixed materials and goods delivered to or date the valuation was made, less any payment (including advance payment) previously made paid under this Contract. PROVIDED THAT such certificate shall only include the value of the said unfixed materials and goods as and from such time as they are reasonably and properly and not prematurely delivered to or adjacent to the site and adequately protected against weather, damage, and deterioration. 28.5 – This clause shall not apply to any unfixed materials and goods which are supplied and delivered by the Nominated Suppliers for which payment shall be made for the full value of the unfixed materials and goods. 28.6 – Within a number of days as stated in Appendix (or if none stated then within thirty (30) days of the issue of any such Interim Certificate), the Government shall make a payment to the Contractor as follows: (a) where the Performance Bond is in the form of a Banker’s, Insurance, or Finance Company Guarantee, payment shall be made on the amount certified as due to the contractor in the said Interim Certificate; or (b) where the Performance Bond is in the form of a Performance Guarantee Sum; payment of the ninety percent (90%) on the amount certified as due to the contractor shall be made with the remaining ten percent (10%) being retained by the Government as a Performance Guarantee Sum. PROVIDED THAT when the sum retained is equivalent to five percent (5%) of the contract sum then in any subsequent Certificate, payment shall be made on the full amount certified as due to the Contractor. (ii) Clause 55 – EVENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF DEFAULT BY GOVERNMENT Default of Obligations S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (a) Events of Default If the Government without any reasonable cause fails to perform or fulfil any of its obligations which adversely affects the Works, then the Contractor may issue a notice specifying the default of the Government and requiring the Government to remedy the same within the period specified therein taking into account the nature of the remedy to be carried out by JKP Sdn Bhd or such other period as may be agreed by both Parties from the date of receipt of such notice. (b) Termination If JKP Sdn Bhd fails to remedy the default period specified in such notice issued under clause 55 (a) within the stipulated time therein, the Contractor shall have the right to forthwith terminate this Contract by giving written notice to the effect. (c) Consequences of Termination If this Contract is terminated under clause 55(b) (i) JKP Sdn Bhd shall pay to the Contractor – (a) the value of the Works carried out up to the date of termination; (b) the amounts payable in respect of any preliminary items so far as the work or service comprised therein has been carried out or performed and a proper proportion of any such items which have been partially carried out or performed; (c) the cost of materials or goods reasonably ordered for the Works which have been delivered to the contractor or of which the Contractor is legally liable to accept delivery (such materials or goods becoming the property of the Government upon such payment being made to the Contractor); and S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (d) a sum being the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the Contractor in so far as such expenditure has not been recovered by any other payments referred to in this sub-clause. (ii) For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties hereby agree that the Contractor shall not be entitled to any other form of losses including loss of profit, damages, claims, or whatsoever upon termination of this contract. (iii) Clause 56 – CERTIFICATE OF TERMINATION COSTS 56.1 - As soon as the arrangements for the completion of the Works made by the JKP Sdn Bhd enable the SO to make a reasonable accurate assessment of the ultimate cost of completing the Works following the termination of the Contractor’s employment and the engagement of other contractors or persons, and the amount of direct loss and/or damage caused to the Government due to the termination has been ascertained by the SO, then the SO may issue a certificate (hereinafter referred to as the “certificate of Termination Costs”) stating the completion Cost (herein defined) and the Final Contract Sum (hereinafter defined). 56.2 – The Completion Cost comprises the following sums, cost or expenditure: (a) the sums previously paid to the Contractor by JKP Sdn Bhd; (b) the sums paid or payable to other contractors or persons engaged to complete the Works; (c) any sums paid to sub-contractors or suppliers under clause 61 (d) any costs or expenditures incurred or to be incurred including On-Cost Charges incurred by JKP Sdn Bhd in completing the Works; and S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 (e) the amount of direct loss and/or damage caused to JKP Sdn Bhd due to the termination. 56.3 – The Final Contract Sum comprises of the following amounts or sums: (a) the amount which would have been payable under the Contract on the completion in accordance with the Contract, allowing any variations or other matters which would have resulted in an adjustment of the original Contract Sum; and (b) any other sums which JKP Sdn Bhd might be entitled under the terms of the Contract to deduct from the original Contract Sums, had the Contractor’s employment not been terminated. 56.4 The certification of Termination Costs shall state the difference between the Final Contract Sum and the Completion Cost. If the Final Contract Sum is less than the Completion Cost, the difference shall be the debt payable by the Contractor to the Government to the Contractor. 56.5 – The Certificate of Termination Costs shall be binding and conclusive on the Contractor as to the amount of such loss or damage specified therein. 56.6 - In the event the completion of the Works being undertaken departmentally, allowance shall be made, when ascertaining the amount to be certified as costs and expense incurred by the Government, for cost of supervision, interest, and depreciation on plant and all other usual overhead charges and profit as would be incurred if the works were completed by other contractors or persons. [35] However, the Adjudicator in this case, in his Adjudication Decision held that the most applicable clause for the appellant’s claim against the respondent is clause 36.6 of the Contract and allowed the claim based on S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 the said clause. In the Adjudication Decisions at paragraphs 100, and 101 this was said: “100. The respondent argued that the correct and crucial provision of the Contract is Clause 36.5 of the COC and that the Claimant has not invoking (sic) this provision in support of its claim. However, in my considered opinion, Clause 36.6 of COC are the one most applicable to the Claimant’s claim. Clause 36.6 of COC which provides as below: “36.6 Notwithstanding anything in clause 36.5, if the Contractor carries out any further test as required by the SO pursuant to clause 36.2 and the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials is not in accordance with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by the Contractor. But if the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials comply with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by JKP Sdn Bhd. (emphasis added).” 101. Clearly and certainly, in order to succeed the claim pursuant on the above clause, the burden is on the Claimant to show a cogent proof of whether the Claimant has received any instruction or direction by the Respondent or Respondent’s consultants under the Contract at the material time.” [36] Further, at paragraphs 104 and 105 of the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator states this: “104. As the Independent Consultants i.e. the Professional Engineer has certified and endorsed the building is safe and this would have meant that the Claimant has carried out the construction work are in accordance with the Contract. This is opposing to what allegation put forth by the Respondent that the construction S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 works carried out by the Claimant are not in accordance with the Contract and that had compromised the safety of the building. Therefore, pursuant to Clause 36.6 of the COC which further provides as below: “But if the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials comply with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by the JKP Sdn Bhd.” …… 105. By foregoing reason and considering all the facts and circumstances available to me, I am hold (sic) to determine that the Claimant has proved, on the balance of probabilities, and that the Respondent shall pay the cost of the Independent Consultants which engaged by the Claimant in produce the relevant report as instructed by the respondent’s consultants. (emphasis added) [37] Reading the paragraphs of the Adjudication Decision alluded to above, it is undoubtedly that the Adjudicator had relied on clause 36.6 of the Contract in allowing the appellant’s claim. This clause was not relied upon by the appellant in the Payment Claim filed under section 5 to establish its claim, nor mentioned by the respondent in the Payment Response filed under section 6 of CIPAA. In addition, having perused the Adjudication decision, there is nowhere to show that the Adjudicator relied on clauses 28, 55, or 56 of the Contract which were the provisions relied upon by the appellant in its Payment Claim to establish its cause of action. [38] As the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to matters referred to the Adjudicator under sections 5 and 6, and the cause of action based on S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 clause 36.6 was not relied upon in the Payment Claim, the Adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the dispute based on clause 36.6 of the Contract. The cause of action under clause 36.6 was not the appellant’s case in the Payment Claim or the respondent rebuttal in the Payment Response. [39] In our neighbouring country, Singapore, the Adjudicator is also clothed with the same limited jurisdiction as provided under section 17(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed). In explaining the application of the said provision, Sundaresh Menon CJ in WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 said this: “46. This subsection sets out what an adjudicator is permitted to consider and expressly provides that he “shall only have regard to [those] matters” [40] Likewise in the present case, section 27(1) has expressly limited the Adjudicator to adjudicate only matters pursuant to sections 5 and 6, not any other matters which have been discussed earlier. [41] Moreover, both parties have not given written consent to extend the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters relying on the cause of action established in clause 36.6 of the Contract as required under section 27(2) of CIPAA. In my view, if the Adjudicator finds that the cause of action was established under a different clause of the Contract, as in the present S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 case, the matter should be brought to the attention of the parties and if agrees, written consent be issued under section 27(2) to clothe the Adjudicator with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters based on the cause of action under clause 36.6. [42] On this ground of want of jurisdiction alone, the Adjudication Decision cannot stand. The Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction and ground to set aside the Adjudication Decision under section 15(d) of CIPAA which states: “15. Improperly Procured Adjudication Decision An aggrieved party may apply to the High Court to set aside an adjudication decision on one or more of the following grounds: a) The adjudication decision was improperly procured through fraud or bribery; b) There has been a denial of natural justice; c) The adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially; or d) The adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction.” (emphasis added) [43] The next issue before this Court is whether there was a denial of natural justice when parties in the present case were not given the right to be heard on the application of clause 36.6 which was the Adjudicator’s S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 basis for allowing the appellant’s claim. The denial of natural justice is also a ground to challenge the Adjudication Decision provided under section 15(b) of CIPAA. [44] The concept of natural justice is well settled that parties must be given the right to be heard before a decision is made. A judge should not decide on an issue which was not pleaded and it is not the duty of the court to create a cause of action under the guise of doing justice. This court in Pacific Forest Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor v Lin Wen-Chih & Anor [2009] 6 CLJ 430 reiterated this principle as follows: “[16] The court also decides a case after considering the evidence adduced by each party and documents produced by them. Neither party should be taken by surprise. Even in respect of law, whether it is the court at first instance or the appellate court, judges rely heavily on the submissions put forward by the respective counsel. A good counsel is one who produces authorities to support the statement of law he is relying upon. The authorities can be in the form of reported judgments, text books, or even published law articles. In fact, according to etiquette, he is supposed to even bring to the attention of the court authorities which favour his opponent’s case. Of course, in such an instance, he would then distinguish the facts of the case before the court to the case in the authority. It is therefore dangerous and totally unadvisable, for the court, on its own accord, to consider any point without reliance on any pleadings or submission by counsel appearing before them. If the learned judge thinks there are any points which are relevant to the case before him and which was not raised by either party, it is his duty to highlight that to the parties before him. He must then give an opportunity for both parties to further submit on that particular point. There have been instances where a judge may already form some opinion on certain issues, legal or otherwise, but S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 after hearing submissions and views expressed by a party, he may conclude differently. [17] The effect of a judge making a decision on an issue not based on the pleadings and without hearing the parties on that particular issue would be in breach of the latin maxim audi alteram partem, which literally means, to hear the other side, a basic principle of natural justice.” (emphasis added) [45] The same principle was acknowledged by this Court in Dato’ Tan Chin Woh v Dato’ Yalumallai V Muthusamy [2016] 8 CLJ 293 and further said this: “[21] It is thus clear that whenever the court proposes to consider a fresh issue which the court considers pertinent to the case before it, it should give the parties the right to make submissions on the proposed issue before arriving at its finding. This is fundamental in the adversarial system that we practice in this country.” (emphasis added) [46] Further, on the concept of natural justice, Tengku Maimun CJ in Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] 1 MLJ 750 at page 825 said this: [188] In simpler terms, natural justice which encapsulates the twin concepts of nemo judex in causa sua (the rule against bias) and audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), are integral features of a written constitution which protects S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 fundamental liberties. Both rights are equally important but for the purpose of this judgment, particular emphasis is given to the right to be heard. On that right, Bhagwati J observed in Maneka Gandhi that ‘the soul of natural justice is fair-play in action and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world’. (emphasis added) [47] Reverting to the present case, it is undisputed that parties were not given the opportunity to submit the cause of action under clause 36.6 of the Contract before the Adjudication decision was handed down. Besides the principle of the right to be heard, the submission by parties as highlighted in the Pacific Forest case, may persuade the judge or in the present case, the Adjudicator, to decide differently. The principle of natural justice includes allowing parties to present their case effectively. [48] In an old case, Semtex v Gladstone [1954] 2 All ER 206 at page 212, Finnemore J said this: “Natural justice requires that the appellant be given a full and adequate hearing, and opportunity to give evidence on behalf of himself if he so desires and to call such witnesses as he considers necessary for his case…Natural justice is not something which any one of us can define in our own terms. It is basic. (emphasis added) S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [49] In the circumstances, I find, the non-giving of the opportunity by the Adjudicator for the parties to submit or canvass the issue of cause of action under clause 36.6 before making the decision, is a denial of natural justice. [50] In the present case, the main question is whether the applicant’s cause of action established under any of the clauses in the Contract and pleaded in the Payment Claim are matters adjudicated by the Adjudicator as mandated under section 27(1) of CIPAA. The issue of strict rules of pleading in civil claims to be complied with does not arise and is misplaced as section 27(1) has underlined the limited jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to adjudicate matters referred to the Adjudicator under section 5, that is the Payment Claim and section 6, which is the Payment Response. The answer to this main question is in the negative. [51] Based on the analysis and views mentioned above, I find it unnecessary to answer the questions posed by the appellant for me to decide on this appeal. Conclusion [52] In the circumstances, both the appellant’s appeals are dismissed and the decisions of the Court of Appeal are affirmed. The appellant is to pay costs to the respondent in the sum of RM60,000.00 subject to S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 payment of the allocator. The Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak (CJSS) has read this judgment in the draft and has agreed to it. My learned sister Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan is dissenting. Dated 8 January 2024 - sgd - (DATO’ NORDIN BIN HASSAN) Judge Federal Court of Malaysia Counsel: For the Appellant: Ong Yu Shin Ong (Lee Hooi Ying & Lim Wooi Ying with him) [Messrs. The Chambers of Yu Shin Ong] For the Respondent: Dato’ Seri Mahinder Singh Dulku (Dato’ Abdul Fareed bin Abdul Gafoor & Farah Nabilah binti Shaharuddin with him) [Messrs. Ezrilaw Firm] S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 S/N zntFIHKeUapZ3QvmRBC8Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCvC-526-09/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) MOMENTUM AUTOPARTS SDN BHD 2. ) WONG LI LIAN DEFENDAN 1. ) TOH GIM HEOK 2. ) TAN THIAM ENG

The Plaintiff’s application to safeguard the confidential business information of Momentum Autosports is specific as particularised in Appendix A to Enc 3. As such, this Court allows the Plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunction as per Enc 3 and grant order in terms of prayers sought for against Sally Toh only. The application against Eric Tan is dismissed. Eric Tan however is reminded that he ought not to be involved in any dealings related to the business of Momentum Autosports until the disposal of the trial. As per prayer 4 this Court gives liberty to apply. Costs in the cause.

12/01/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8c6dbb70-23a1-49e4-8609-7fde4eb97b51&Inline=true

IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL CASE NO: WA-22NCvC-526-09/2023 BETWEEN 1. MOMENTUM AUTOPARTS SDN BHD [COMPANY No: 200201000378/568041-H] 2. WONG LI LIAN [NRIC No: 830114-14-5930] …. PLAINTIFFS AND 1. TOH GIM HEOK [NRIC No: 520612-08-5420] 2. TAN THIAM ENG [NRIC No: 601008-10-6541] .… DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 12/01/2024 16:04:38 WA-22NCvC-526-09/2023 Kand. 72 S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Enc 3: Plaintiffs’ Application for an interim injunction [1] Through the cause papers, this case concerned a cross- generational relationship between two women joined through marriage. The Plaintiffs’ pleaded facts disclosed tensions beyond formal business relationship over autonomy. This suit filed by the Plaintiffs show signs of the struggles with roles and status, and the layered emotions tied to family bonds. [2] The Second Plaintiff (Lilian Wong) is the sole director and shareholder of the First Plaintiff (Momentum Autoparts) that specialises in the sale of, amongst others, motor racing vehicle products. She was appointed on 1.3.2023 and the wife of Lee Sandek prior to his demise several months ago on 11.7.2023. When he was alive, he was the managing director and sole shareholder of Momentum Autoparts. The deceased founded and incorporated the Momentum Autoparts on 30.11.2009 then known as Speed n Safe Racing Sdn Bhd. [3] The First Defendant (Sally Toh) is the mother of the deceased, Lilian Wong’s mother-in-law. She was also an employee of Momentum Autoparts for seven months. From January 2023 she was asked to assist the deceased at work. Her task was more than just that of a personal assistant to the deceased. She had dealt with Momentum Autoparts’ business matters too. Vide the evidence disclosed in the affidavits, she had obtained and was in possession of confidential information of the business of Momentum Autoparts when she carried out her works there. As the mother to the late managing director, she seemed to have access to information she required in the office during her employment of seven months there. The Plaintiffs had pleaded that the Defendants were business partners and by association, members of the Rotary Club Bukit Bintang. [4] Pursuant to the Grant of Probate issued by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 9.8.2023 the deceased’s entire shareholding of Momentum Autoparts was transferred to Lilian Wong. This suit filed by the Plaintiffs in September 2023 alleged that Sally Toh misappropriated and misused S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal confidential company information of Momentum Autoparts. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants conspired to injure them and divert the business of Momentum Autoparts to themselves. The Plaintiffs’ prayers included declaration of those contentions and a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from using, disseminating, disclosing, divulging or otherwise confidential information of the business of Momentum Autoparts. Trial dates have been set. [5] Together with their writ and statement of claim, the Plaintiffs had filed Enc 3 which is an application under Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC) for an interim injunction which is the same as that prayed for in their statement of claim (SoC). The Plaintiffs claimed that the status quo ought to be preserved awaiting the trial as there were real risks of loss and damage to Momentum Autoparts that would be irreparable. Serious Issues to be tried [6] The trite law as laid out in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193; [1995] 1 CLJ 293 is instructive in assessing this application. The first threshold is that there must be bona fide serious issues to be tried. The Plaintiffs argued there are serious issues regarding breach of confidentiality, conspiracy, interference with business, etc. that require determination at trial. Sally Toh disputed this, arguing the emails in question did not disclose confidential information or show conspiracy/interference by her to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. The merits of this application thus lie in determining whether the emails contained sensitive information and pointed to improper conduct on the part of the Defendants that warrant an interim stay pending trial. [7] The Plaintiffs took issue with the email Sally Toh sent a day after the passing of her son. Lilian Wong was not copied in the mail. It was more to announce the sudden sad change and that business would proceed as usual. She had included herself as the contact person together with two other officers of Momentum Autoparts. She indicated that she was part of the management. Sally Toh’s words were “I will be writing over the weekend to answer any of your clarifications as I will be taking charge of S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the company.” She made no mention of Lilian Wong the sole director and shareholder of Momentum Autoparts in her offer of assurance to the business partners and the customers at large. What further raised eyebrows were also the fact that she did not loop in Lilian Wong in the email, and that Sally Toh did this almost immediately after the passing of her son whilst she was said to be in grief. [8] Sally Toh’s defence that Lilian Wong had authorised her to manage Momentum Autosports is implausible as that proposal only arose on 25.7.2023, way after that email was issued and the announcements by Momentum Autosports were made. [9] As to the announcements released by Momentum Autosports, on their own, this Court does not agree with the Plaintiffs’ contention that they amounted to improper conduct as alleged. The announcement by Momentum Autosports on 12.7.2023 which is the day after the deceased’s passing had only introduced Sally Toh as the point of contact. It stated that “She will be the main point of contact should you need any clarifications, or you can also contact us at the office.” In the email, there is no hijacking of company’s affairs by Sally Toh all to herself. The other announcement on 20.7.2023 thanking customers, suppliers and all for the condolences did not amount to improper conduct either. Since Sally Toh had signed off as corporate affairs, she can be seen to have done her duty. However, they must be viewed in totality with all the actions taken by Sally Toh. This Court will not assess them in isolation. [10] Lilian Wong averred that she did not agree to Sally Toh’s offer to take over her shareholdings for RM1,500,000. On 30.7.2023 Sally Toh had tendered her resignation. Evidence show that she had taken further actions in connection to Momentum Autosports thereafter. [11] The attention of this Court now turns to the email dated 22.8.2023 from one of their suppliers, Endless Sports which the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs argued that it confirmed their suspicions. That said email referred to an email from Sally Toh the week before which meant that it was sent after she had resigned and left the employment of Momentum S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Autoparts. It is quite apparent that following the email from Sally Toh, some uncertainty and confusion arose as it wrote: “Would like to ask, who is the management of Momentum now, and we need to renew the contact between Endless and Momentum as Mr Sandek has left. And do you have the Organization chart of Momentum? If possible, we would like to know who is who.” [12] There is a trailing email from Sally Toh on 13.8.2023 showed that she did contact Endless Sports. She informed them of the history of Momentum Autosports where she stated that the business venture “was a shared vision between my son, Lee Sandek, and me. Together, we created something remarkable, something that left an indelible mark on the industry and the lives of many.” She informed them that she had stepped down and away from Momentum Autosports which was according to her “the right decision for the future of the company.” However, in the same breath she stated as follows: “I am excited to introduce to you Eric Tan, my new partner in this journey. Eric and I share the same goals, values, and vision that Lee Sandek and I held dear. His expertise, passion, and commitment make him a natural fit to carry forward the legacy that we began together. I firmly believe with Eric’s leadership, our partnership will continue to grow and thrive, honoring Lee Sandek’s memory and the values that have guided us.” [13] Sally Toh ended the email thanking Endless Sport for their “steadfast support and tireless efforts throughout this journey, and I hope you will continue to us support us in this new venture.” So, from the reading of the email, it looked like there is a new venture that she claimed the Second Defendant (Eric Tan) was to helm. She had also referred repeatedly to the deceased and the successful business relationship Momentum Autosports had with Endless Sport during the deceased’s lifetime. From the reading she averred to Momentum Autosports now no longer having S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the vision, objectives, and values with the demise of the deceased. To this Court’s mind, this undoubtedly may have contributed to the confusion and uncertainty of Endless Sport towards Momentum Autosports. The only result is harm to Momentum Autosports’ business with Endless Sport. [14] This same email was also sent to Alpinestars another supplier of Momentum Autosports. A later email on 3.9.2023 further illustrated her intention to do harm to the Plaintiffs. With her offer of a private city tour to the Head of Sales, she wrote “At this moment, I hope this private arrangement may remain confidential to Lilian as I don’t want her to feel awkward for it is the promise Sandek and I wish to carry on this hospitality with you.” [15] She was insistent as she wrote again on 18.9.2023, this time the email she copied to Eric Tan. Alpinestars declined offers from Sally Toh. [16] Sally Toh’s actions were telling as they were marked ‘Private and Confidential’ and she knew who to sent to in those companies that showed she had to a certain extent used the knowledge acquired whilst with Momentum Autosports. [17] Information of periodic renewal of exclusive distributorship for the country and also Brunei, on a balance of probabilities, must have also been acquired and applied in the communications, from the employment and having had worked closely with the dealings whilst with Momentum Autosports. Her composition in the emails illustrated that she is familiar with the trade and business of Momentum Autosports. [18] This Court is inclined to agree with the contentions by the Plaintiffs that the Sally Toh had executed a stealthy campaign or rather took actions to divert the business of Momentum Autoparts and/or to cause harm to it and/or Lilian Wong by taking advantage of the confidential business information she had acquired through her employment with Momentum Autosports. There was no necessity for her to inform either Endless Sports S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal or Alpinestars of her resignation from Momentum Autosports as she was only in their employment for seven months. [19] After the emails sent by Sally Toh, Endless Sports offered a new non-exclusive distribution contract to Momentum Autosports which was limited to Malaysia. It had lost its exclusive distributorship for Malaysia. It had also lost its entire distributorship to Brunei. Whether it was a coincidence or as a direct result of Sally Toh’s act is a serious issue to be tried. [20] What is apparent here is that there are more than one issue to be tried, aside from whether the information assessed by Sally Toh was confidential information. (See Saltman Engineering Co Ltd & Ors v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 413, Svenson Hair Center Sdn Bhd v Irene Chin Zee Ling [2008] 8 CLJ 386, Ace Capital Growth Sdn Bhd v Kua Kee Koon & Ors [2021] MLJU 2118, Schmidt Scientific Sdn Bhd v Ong Han Suan [1997] 5 MLJ 632, Worldwide Rota Dies Sdn Bhd v Ronald Ong Cheow Joon [2010] 8 MLJ 297). Whether they were misappropriated is another. As to whether she had breached her duties owed to Momentum Autosports. Whether they were shared with Eric Tan is another and whether they both had misused it and had conspired to injure the Plaintiffs are other issues. There are a few more – all to be adjudicated at full hearing. Balance of convenience [21] The Plaintiff’s respectful submission is that the balance favours the granting of the interim injunction to prevent further harm, given that they have already suffered some loss of business exclusivity. Sally Toh countered that the balance lies against the interim injunction since she claimed there is no evidence the confidential information was actually disclosed or misused. However, the nature of the emails and alleged business impact answered this matter. S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [22] This Court finds that the balance tilts in the favour of granting the interim injunction to protect the status of the Plaintiffs from being inflicted further harm. This Court is satisfied that this element is fulfilled. See Mohamed Zainuddin bin Puteh v Yap Chee Seng [1978] 1 MLJ 40, Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193; [1995] 1 CLJ 293. Adequacy of damages [23] Sally Toh contended that monetary compensation would suffice since the core allegation is around confidentiality breach leading to business loss. The adequacy depends on the extent quantifiable loss is shown. The Supreme Court’s decision in Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 241 was cited by the Plaintiffs. It is found that the loss of revenue may be difficult to quantify as it concerned the distributorship of Brunei as well as the non-exclusive distributorship of Malaysia. Conclusion [24] An injunction is an extraordinary remedy, so the case must cross a high threshold of establishing likelihood of harm. After a thorough examination of the available evidence, it becomes compellingly evident that certain actions were intended or planned that would adversely affect the business and its director. This conclusion is drawn not merely from speculative reasoning, but from a concrete analysis of the facts and circumstances presented. The evidence collectively points to an undeniable intent to undertake actions that could be detrimental to Momentum Autosports, the business her very own son had strived for during his lifetime. [25] At this juncture the Plaintiffs have shown the loss in such a short space of time. However, upon closer scrutiny, this Court has yet to see the involvement of Eric Tan but for him being copied in one or two emails. There is no evidence of his partake with Sally Toh although she may have S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal claimed that they were both on a new venture. It remains to be seen whether he had misappropriated or misused with knowledge that it was confidential information of Momentum Autosports’ business with the intention to harm the Plaintiffs. [26] The Plaintiff’s application to safeguard the confidential business information of Momentum Autosports is specific as particularised in Appendix A to Enc 3. As such, this Court allows the Plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunction as per Enc 3 and grant order in terms of prayers sought for against Sally Toh only. The application against Eric Tan is dismissed. Eric Tan however is reminded that he ought not to be involved in any dealings related to the business of Momentum Autosports until the disposal of the trial. This Court allows a longer time period than three days for Sally Toh to furnish her disclosure to the Plaintiffs as to the confidential information and documents. As per prayer 4 this Court gives all parties the liberty to apply. [27] Costs in the cause. DATED 21 DECEMBER 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiffs: James Khong Yoon Hong, Ryan Ng, Kok Hao Ying and Toh Gim Heok S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal T/n James Khong For the 1st Defendants: Vincent Ong Liang Jie together with Mok Yang Yee T/n Tan Norizan & Associates For the 2nd Defendants: Amelia Marie Gasper together with Nor Natasya Amli Mahfuz T/n G. Ragumaren & Co. S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BK-B52NCvC-4-02/2022

PLAINTIF LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK DEFENDAN KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING

Application to intervene - O15 R6(2)(i) & (ii) Rules of Court 2012- the jurisdiction of the sessions court in dealing with immovable property - Section 69 & section 71 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1984- Disposal of case on point of law-O14A R1 Rules of Court 2012.

12/01/2024

Dr. AZROL BIN ABDULLAH

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0c38d88e-133f-4fca-add3-6cecc585d3f3&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN SEPANG DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022 ANTARA LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK (NO K/P: 460807-10-5469) …PLAINTIFF DAN KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING …DEFENDANT DAN TOH CHING KING SESSIONS COURT (SEPANG) Dr. Azrol Bin Abdullah CIVIL SUIT NO BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022 11 October 2023 Representation Sivaperumal a/l Sakitazan (Messrs. G. Ram. Rozeta & Associates) for Plaintiff: Mr Ganesh Perumal & Ms Amila Huda Ahmad (Ganesh & Co) for Applicant/ Proposed intervener GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A) INTRODUCTION [1] This case involves a dispute regarding the transfer of ownership over two parcels of land (the said lands) which were allegedly sold by the Menuntut sebagai waris bagi harta pusaka Lau Heng Guan @ Lan Heng Yuen simati melalui surat kuasa pentadbiran …APPLICANT/ PROPOSED INTERVENER P E N C E L A H Y A N G D I C A D 12/01/2024 00:06:04 BK-B52NCvC-4-02/2022 Kand. 65 S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 defendant before the Merdeka Day. At first blush, the overall facts of this case were interesting. The meandering facts of this case bid for the fullest comprehension of this court. [2] This judgment is prepared pursuant to an appeal filed by the proposed intervener (the applicant) to the High Court following the applicant’s dissatisfaction over my decision in dismissing the applicant’s application at Enclosure 32. [3] Enclosure 32 is an application filed by the applicant seeking leave from this court to intervene in the main action. There were three arguments raised by the applicant in his submission. Out of three, only one crucial argument was raised by the applicant that exposed the Achilles heel of Enclosure 32 which moved this court to dismiss Enclosure 32, i.e. the lack of jurisdiction of this court. [4] The applicant was right in saying that this court was prevented from dealing with this case by section 69 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1984 (SCA1984). Therefore, I dismissed the applicant’s application at Enclosure 32 for want of jurisdiction. B) BRIEF FACTS [5] I do not intend to delve into the merits of this case as I am restrained from doing so. However, it would be important for me to briefly narrate the sequence of events that brought Enclosure 32 before this court. [6] The plaintiff in this case claimed that he was the beneficiary to a deceased Lau Heng Guan who owned the said lands located in the S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 district of Sepang namely Lot 478 and Lot 369 which were purchased by Lau Heng Guan from the defendant through an oral agreement. Lau Heng Guan was the plaintiff’s father. [7] The plaintiff asserted that Lau Heng Guan and himself had been paying the quit rent for the said lands since 1950. The plaintiff supported his claim by further stating that when Lot 369 was acquired by Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), the compensation was paid to him directly in the sum of RM17,783.00. The said compensation payment proves that Lau Heng Guan was the rightful owner of Lot 369. [8] According to the plaintiff, the transfer of title of the said lands was unable to be perfected because the defendant could not be located. The plaintiff sought from this court: i) A declaration that the plaintiff’s father was the legal owner of the said lands; ii) A specific performance order for the perfection of the transfer of the said lands to the plaintiff’s deceased father; iii) The plaintiff being the administrator is given the authority to execute any transfer regarding the said lands to the deceased’s father; iv) An order to the Land Administrator to issue new land grants over the said lands; and v) The plaintiff is permitted to apply new grant. [9] On 10.5.2022, the plaintiff filed another application in this court (Enclosure 19) applying for leave from this court to enter judgment in default against the defendant. Enclosure 19 was heard before a S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 previous judge who handled this case on 11.5.2022. The learned judge gave an order in terms for Enclosure 19 favouring the plaintiff. Thus, judgment in default was recorded against the defendant. [10] I took over this case only in late 2022 and this case was called for the first time before me on 7.12.2022. The plaintiff filed another application at Enclosure 23 requesting leave from this court to allow an amendment to the plaintiff’s name from Kan Kwok Ping to Kim Kwok Ping. I allowed an order in terms for Enclosure 23 on 31.3.2022. [11] Subsequently, the applicant filed Enclosure 32 to intervene on 18.4.2023 requesting this court to grant leave: i) To intervene as one of the parties in this case; ii) To permit the applicant to file his defence and other relevant interlocutory applications; and iii) Costs and other reliefs. [12] The applicant gave the following reasons in support of enclosure 32: i) The applicant has beneficial and legal rights over the said lands; ii) The court’s decision and/or order will affect the applicant’s interest and rights over the deceased’s estate; iii) The judgment in default entered on 11 May 2022 was irregular and illegal; and iv) The applicant’s presence in this suit is important to ensure that all of the evidence can be heard and dealt with fairly. [13] Enclosure 32 was supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant himself. The applicant’s affidavit in support averred that he was the administrator of his late father (applicant’s father). S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [14] The applicant’s affidavit in support affirmed that the applicant’s father and the defendant had been neighbours since 1927. The applicant’s father had purchased the said lands from the defendant for the sum of 750 Straits Settlement Dollars. [15] The applicant also averred in his affidavit that the defendant had issued a letter of attorney to the applicant’s father to manage the said lands before the defendant’s departure to his homeland in China. The applicant alleged that the letter of attorney gave full authority to the applicant’s father to deal with all matters connected to the said lands. [16] I ordered the plaintiff and the applicant to file their written submissions for Enclosure 32. It would be worth to recite the material parts of the parties’ submissions in the succeeding paragraphs. C) The Applicant’s Submission [17] The applicant’s submission was anchored to three issues namely: i) Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the lands in dispute? ii) Whether the applicant or the proposed Intervener have an interest directly related to the subject matter of the action in this suit? iii) Whether this court functus officio? i) Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the lands in dispute? S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [18] The applicant submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the said lands due to the restriction of the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction imposed by sections 65, 69, 71 and 71 of SCA1984. Section 69 of the SCA1984 excluded the Sessions Court jurisdiction from dealing with actions, suits or proceedings of a civil nature relating to immovable property unless consent by parties is obtained. The applicant cited several cases to support this point (see Peh Wee Lee & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik negeri Sembilan & Ors [2018] 5 CLJ 681, All Best Resources Sdn Bhd v Wong Yoke Lu [2015] MLJU 991, United Highlands Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Endah Sari Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1300). The applicant also submitted that the applicant never consented to this matter to be brought before the Sessions Court. ii) Whether the applicant/proposed Intervener have an interest directly related to the subject matter of the action in this suit? [19] The applicant submitted that he possessed the legal and beneficial ownership over the said lands following the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s Order dated 14.07.2022 vide Originating Summons: WA- 24NCvC-1276-07/2021 and Letter of Administration De Bonis Non. Whereas the plaintiff had nothing to produce to prove his ownership over the said lands. [20] The applicant argued that he had fulfilled all of the legal requirements set out by the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52 whereby the applicant will be directly affected by the outcome of the suit if he is not allowed to intervene and unable to set aside the judgment in default. Ultimately the applicant will lose S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the chance to recover the said lands if the said lands are transferred to a third party. iii) Whether this court functus officio? [21] The applicant contended that this court was not functus officio from hearing and allowing the applicant’s application to intervene because this case had not been heard on its merits. The judgment of default obtained by the plaintiff was also unenforceable due to this court’s lack of jurisdiction. [22] The applicant supported his argument based on the decision of the Federal Court in Dr. Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj v Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 5 MLJ 185; wherein it was held that any court orders that were null and void could be set aside through an intervener application even if the main proceeding had ended. D) The Plaintiff’s Submission [23] According to the plaintiff, an action was filed at the High Court vide case number WA-22NCvC-47-02/2023 to set aside the aforementioned High Court order dated 14.7.2022 (WA-24NCvC- 1276-07/2021) on the ground that the said order was fraudulently obtained by the applicant. However, the plaintiff’s action was transferred to the Shah Alam High Court because the Kuala Lumpur High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with lands located in Selangor. [24] The plaintiff averred that the power of attorney produced by the applicant had been forged and all of the facts submitted by the S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 applicant in this case were concocted lies. The document exhibited at TCK-8 also did not bear any weight because it was written in Chinese characters without any translations. [25] Plaintiff repeatedly submitted that the applicant’s application was made without merit and mala fide because the applicant had no legal interest in the said lands. The plaintiff further emphasised that the Sepang Land Administrator had awarded the plaintiff with compensation in the sum of RM17,783.00 in consideration for the TNB Electric Supply Project on Lot 369. However, the compensation remained unpaid pending the transfer of title. [26] The plaintiff submitted that the said lands were never part of the Toh Bu Yong’s property. Exhibit TCK11 (Originating summons NA-24 NCvC-190-08/2017) produced in the applicant’s affidavit proves that the said lands were not listed as part of Toh Bu Yong’s estate when the applicant was appointed as the sole administrator for Toh Bu Yong’s estate. E) Court’s Findings [27] My upsum of Enclosure 32 is this, the applicant wanted to intervene because according to the applicant, the said lands belong to the applicant’s deceased father. Conversely, the plaintiff argued that the applicant had no interest in the said lands because the said lands belonged to the plaintiff’s deceased father. Clearly, both parties had opposed versions on the ownership of the said lands. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [28] The applicant merely cited Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RHC2012) in general terms but did not specify the exact limb of Order 15 Rule 6 of RHC2012 that enabled the applicant to intervene. [29] Presumably, the applicant’s application should fall squarely under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(i) and (ii) of the RHC2012. For ease of reference, the said Order 15 Rule 16(2)(i) and (ii) RHC2012 is reproduced below: 6. (1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter. (2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application— (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely— (i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or (ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter. (3) An application by any person for an order under paragraph (2) adding him as a party shall, except with the leave of the Court, be supported by an affidavit showing his interest in the matters in dispute in the cause or S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 matter or, as the case may be, the question or issue to be determined as between him and any party to the cause or matter. (4) A person shall not be added as a plaintiff without his consent signified in writing or in such other manner as may be authorized. [30] The wording of Order 15 Rule 6 RHC2012 above is plain and clear that the court has the discretion to order any person to be added as a party in a proceeding under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(i) RHC2012 if its presence is necessary to ensure the dispute be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated or under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(ii) RHC2012 if there exists a question or issue arising out of or connected with any relief or remedy claimed. [31] It would be apposite for me to briefly state here that the application of Order 15 Rule 6 RHC2012 and its test to succeed have been discussed in a plethora of cases and among others is the Supreme Court case of Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd v Jamaludin bin Dato Mohd Jarjis [1991] 2 MLJ 27; [1991] 2 CLJ 862. In this case, it was held as follows: [1](a) One of the principal objects of O 15 r 6 of RHC 1980, which replaced O 16 r 11 of Rules of Supreme Court 1967, is to enable the Court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the action without giving this person an opportunity of being heard. [2] As a result of Gurtner v Circuit, a person who is not a party is allowed to intervene if the intervener is directly affected not only in his legal rights (as provided for under O 15 r 6 RHC 1980) but in his pocket. (Emphasis added.) [32] The applicant was correct in referring this court to the decision of the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 2 MLJ 52 on the applicable test to intervene. In Pegang Mining, Lord Diplock explained whether a person can be added as a party in the following words: … one of the principal objects of the rule is to enable the court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the action without his being given an opportunity of being heard… A better way of expressing the test is: will his rights against or liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in the action? (Emphasis added.) [33] Against the above legal setting, before this court can entertain any application to intervene, overall facts relating to the subject matter must be dealt with by the court to determine whether the proposed intervener will be affected by the legal action. To my mind, to deal with the related facts, this court must be vested with the jurisdiction to do so. [34] Unfortunately, the subject matter of this case involves two parcels of land which is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate. In this respect, I refer to section 69 of the SCA1984 which states: Section 69. Exceptions to jurisdiction. Sessions Courts shall have no jurisdiction in actions, suits or proceedings of a civil nature— (a) relating to immovable property except as provided in sections 70 and 71; [35] The restriction on the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction from dealing with immovable property had been reemphasised by the Court of Appeal in Peh Wee Lee & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Sembilan & Ors [2018] 5 MLJ 269, wherein the Court of Appeal ruled: [17] …the sessions court is generally not clothed with the necessary jurisdiction to deal with immovable property/land. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [36] On the contrary, section 71 of the SCA1984 gives an exception to the Sessions Court to deal with immovable property if all of the parties interested provide their consent. section 71 of the SCA1984 states: Section 71. Jurisdiction to adjudicate on title to immovable property with consent of parties. If in any action or suit before a Sessions Court, the title to any immovable property is disputed, or the question of the ownership thereof arises, the Court may adjudicate thereon if all parties interested consent; but, if they do not all consent, the Sessions Court Judge shall apply to the High Court to transfer the action or suit to itself. [37] Guidance on the operation of section 71 of the SCA1984 could be found in the decided cases. In All Best Resources Sdn Bhd v Wong Yoke Lu [2015] MLJU 991, the High Court ruled: This statutory provision allows the Sessions Court to adjudicate even when there is dispute on the title to any immovable property if consented to by the parties. If there is no such consent, the Sessions Court judge shall apply to transfer the suit to the High Court. [38] In the same vein, the High Court in United Highlands Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Endah Sari Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1300 held as follows: [25] In my view, the requirement of consent under section 71 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 can be satisfied by showing a Defendant has expressly in writing or impliedly by conduct consent to the Sessions Court to adjudicate on title to immovable property. [39] I prompted the applicant and the plaintiff on 18 July 2023 about the restriction imposed by section 60 of the SCA1984. Therefore, the immediate legal conundrum that needs to be resolved first before anything else is whether this court is prevented by section 60 of the SCA1984 from dealing with the subject matter of this case. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [40] In this respect, I invoked Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 which permits this court to decide on questions of law that could dispose of the entire issue at hand. Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 states: Order 14A. Disposal of case on point of law Determination of questions of law or construction (O. 14A, r. 1) 1. (1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that— (a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and (b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein. (2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just. (3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question. [41] I found comfort in applying Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 based on the decision of the High Court in Krishnan Rajan A/L N Krishnan V Bank Negara Malaysia [2003] 1 MLJ 149 wherein Abdul Malik Ishak J. (as he then was) ruled: Next, it would be the case of Thanaraj a/l Manikam & Ors v Lower Perak Tamil Co-operative Society [1997] 4 MLJ 82, a decision of Kang Hwee Gee J, where the learned judge said at pp 88-89 of the report: Ideally, the procedure for the defendant to adopt was to plead the issue in their statement of defence under O 18 r 11 of the RHC 1980. He could then follow up by an application under O 33 r 2 and if it appears to the court that the decision on the preliminary issue substantially disposes of the case or matter or renders the trial of the cause or matter unnecessary, the court may then act under O 33 r 5 to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [42] The decision in Krishnan Rajan gives the court the discretion to determine any questions that could substantially dispose of the whole cause of action based on Order 33 Rule 5 Rules of the High Court 1980. In our present context, a similar provision is Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012. [43] Following the mandatory requirement imposed by Order 14A Rule 1(3) RHC2012, I ordered both parties on 18 July 2023 to submit in their respective written submissions whether this court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter, particularly the applicant’s application. [44] The plaintiff did not offer any submission on the jurisdiction of this court. Be that as it may. However, I would be remiss in not mentioning my appreciation to the applicant’s counsel for being obliged to put forth a submission on the jurisdiction of this court to deal with the subject matter herein. [45] I found myself agreeable with the submission by the applicant’s counsel that, this court had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of this case based on section 69 of the SCA1984. Therefore, the aforementioned legal question is hereby answered in the affirmative. [46] This court also did not obtain any consent from all of the parties to activate the operation of section 71 of the SCA1984. I take cognisant about the mandatory duty of this court under section 71 of the SCA1984 to transfer this case to the High Court in the absence of consent by all of the parties. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so since the plaintiff had already obtained a judgment in default against S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 the defendant on 11 May 2022 before a previous judge. It would not be farfetched for me to say that this case has been technically disposed of. To date, there is no application by the defendant to set aside the judgment in default entered by the plaintiff. [47] In the absence of jurisdiction to deal with immovable property, this court was unable to deal with all matters that are related to it including the applicant’s application. I was inhibited from dealing with the merits of the facts affirmed in all of the affidavits presented by the applicant and the plaintiffs concerning Enclosure 32. It is my considered observation that the principles enunciated in Dr Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj v Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 5 MLJ 185 would certainly benefit the applicant only if this court had the jurisdiction to deal with the said lands. [48] The reasons adumbrated above would indeed dishearten the applicant, but this court had no other option but to dismiss Enclosure 32 with no order to costs due to want of jurisdiction. ………………Sgd……………….. Dr Azrol Bin Abdullah Judge Sessions Court Sepang S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BK-B52NCvC-4-02/2022

PLAINTIF LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK DEFENDAN KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING

Application to intervene - O15 R6(2)(i) & (ii) Rules of Court 2012- the jurisdiction of the sessions court in dealing with immovable property - Section 69 & section 71 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1984- Disposal of case on point of law-O14A R1 Rules of Court 2012.

12/01/2024

Dr. AZROL BIN ABDULLAH

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0c38d88e-133f-4fca-add3-6cecc585d3f3&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN SEPANG DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022 ANTARA LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK (NO K/P: 460807-10-5469) …PLAINTIFF DAN KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING …DEFENDANT DAN TOH CHING KING SESSIONS COURT (SEPANG) Dr. Azrol Bin Abdullah CIVIL SUIT NO BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022 11 October 2023 Representation Sivaperumal a/l Sakitazan (Messrs. G. Ram. Rozeta & Associates) for Plaintiff: Mr Ganesh Perumal & Ms Amila Huda Ahmad (Ganesh & Co) for Applicant/ Proposed intervener GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A) INTRODUCTION [1] This case involves a dispute regarding the transfer of ownership over two parcels of land (the said lands) which were allegedly sold by the Menuntut sebagai waris bagi harta pusaka Lau Heng Guan @ Lan Heng Yuen simati melalui surat kuasa pentadbiran …APPLICANT/ PROPOSED INTERVENER P E N C E L A H Y A N G D I C A D 12/01/2024 00:06:04 BK-B52NCvC-4-02/2022 Kand. 65 S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 defendant before the Merdeka Day. At first blush, the overall facts of this case were interesting. The meandering facts of this case bid for the fullest comprehension of this court. [2] This judgment is prepared pursuant to an appeal filed by the proposed intervener (the applicant) to the High Court following the applicant’s dissatisfaction over my decision in dismissing the applicant’s application at Enclosure 32. [3] Enclosure 32 is an application filed by the applicant seeking leave from this court to intervene in the main action. There were three arguments raised by the applicant in his submission. Out of three, only one crucial argument was raised by the applicant that exposed the Achilles heel of Enclosure 32 which moved this court to dismiss Enclosure 32, i.e. the lack of jurisdiction of this court. [4] The applicant was right in saying that this court was prevented from dealing with this case by section 69 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1984 (SCA1984). Therefore, I dismissed the applicant’s application at Enclosure 32 for want of jurisdiction. B) BRIEF FACTS [5] I do not intend to delve into the merits of this case as I am restrained from doing so. However, it would be important for me to briefly narrate the sequence of events that brought Enclosure 32 before this court. [6] The plaintiff in this case claimed that he was the beneficiary to a deceased Lau Heng Guan who owned the said lands located in the S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 district of Sepang namely Lot 478 and Lot 369 which were purchased by Lau Heng Guan from the defendant through an oral agreement. Lau Heng Guan was the plaintiff’s father. [7] The plaintiff asserted that Lau Heng Guan and himself had been paying the quit rent for the said lands since 1950. The plaintiff supported his claim by further stating that when Lot 369 was acquired by Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), the compensation was paid to him directly in the sum of RM17,783.00. The said compensation payment proves that Lau Heng Guan was the rightful owner of Lot 369. [8] According to the plaintiff, the transfer of title of the said lands was unable to be perfected because the defendant could not be located. The plaintiff sought from this court: i) A declaration that the plaintiff’s father was the legal owner of the said lands; ii) A specific performance order for the perfection of the transfer of the said lands to the plaintiff’s deceased father; iii) The plaintiff being the administrator is given the authority to execute any transfer regarding the said lands to the deceased’s father; iv) An order to the Land Administrator to issue new land grants over the said lands; and v) The plaintiff is permitted to apply new grant. [9] On 10.5.2022, the plaintiff filed another application in this court (Enclosure 19) applying for leave from this court to enter judgment in default against the defendant. Enclosure 19 was heard before a S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 previous judge who handled this case on 11.5.2022. The learned judge gave an order in terms for Enclosure 19 favouring the plaintiff. Thus, judgment in default was recorded against the defendant. [10] I took over this case only in late 2022 and this case was called for the first time before me on 7.12.2022. The plaintiff filed another application at Enclosure 23 requesting leave from this court to allow an amendment to the plaintiff’s name from Kan Kwok Ping to Kim Kwok Ping. I allowed an order in terms for Enclosure 23 on 31.3.2022. [11] Subsequently, the applicant filed Enclosure 32 to intervene on 18.4.2023 requesting this court to grant leave: i) To intervene as one of the parties in this case; ii) To permit the applicant to file his defence and other relevant interlocutory applications; and iii) Costs and other reliefs. [12] The applicant gave the following reasons in support of enclosure 32: i) The applicant has beneficial and legal rights over the said lands; ii) The court’s decision and/or order will affect the applicant’s interest and rights over the deceased’s estate; iii) The judgment in default entered on 11 May 2022 was irregular and illegal; and iv) The applicant’s presence in this suit is important to ensure that all of the evidence can be heard and dealt with fairly. [13] Enclosure 32 was supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant himself. The applicant’s affidavit in support averred that he was the administrator of his late father (applicant’s father). S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [14] The applicant’s affidavit in support affirmed that the applicant’s father and the defendant had been neighbours since 1927. The applicant’s father had purchased the said lands from the defendant for the sum of 750 Straits Settlement Dollars. [15] The applicant also averred in his affidavit that the defendant had issued a letter of attorney to the applicant’s father to manage the said lands before the defendant’s departure to his homeland in China. The applicant alleged that the letter of attorney gave full authority to the applicant’s father to deal with all matters connected to the said lands. [16] I ordered the plaintiff and the applicant to file their written submissions for Enclosure 32. It would be worth to recite the material parts of the parties’ submissions in the succeeding paragraphs. C) The Applicant’s Submission [17] The applicant’s submission was anchored to three issues namely: i) Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the lands in dispute? ii) Whether the applicant or the proposed Intervener have an interest directly related to the subject matter of the action in this suit? iii) Whether this court functus officio? i) Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the lands in dispute? S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [18] The applicant submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the said lands due to the restriction of the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction imposed by sections 65, 69, 71 and 71 of SCA1984. Section 69 of the SCA1984 excluded the Sessions Court jurisdiction from dealing with actions, suits or proceedings of a civil nature relating to immovable property unless consent by parties is obtained. The applicant cited several cases to support this point (see Peh Wee Lee & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik negeri Sembilan & Ors [2018] 5 CLJ 681, All Best Resources Sdn Bhd v Wong Yoke Lu [2015] MLJU 991, United Highlands Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Endah Sari Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1300). The applicant also submitted that the applicant never consented to this matter to be brought before the Sessions Court. ii) Whether the applicant/proposed Intervener have an interest directly related to the subject matter of the action in this suit? [19] The applicant submitted that he possessed the legal and beneficial ownership over the said lands following the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s Order dated 14.07.2022 vide Originating Summons: WA- 24NCvC-1276-07/2021 and Letter of Administration De Bonis Non. Whereas the plaintiff had nothing to produce to prove his ownership over the said lands. [20] The applicant argued that he had fulfilled all of the legal requirements set out by the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52 whereby the applicant will be directly affected by the outcome of the suit if he is not allowed to intervene and unable to set aside the judgment in default. Ultimately the applicant will lose S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the chance to recover the said lands if the said lands are transferred to a third party. iii) Whether this court functus officio? [21] The applicant contended that this court was not functus officio from hearing and allowing the applicant’s application to intervene because this case had not been heard on its merits. The judgment of default obtained by the plaintiff was also unenforceable due to this court’s lack of jurisdiction. [22] The applicant supported his argument based on the decision of the Federal Court in Dr. Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj v Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 5 MLJ 185; wherein it was held that any court orders that were null and void could be set aside through an intervener application even if the main proceeding had ended. D) The Plaintiff’s Submission [23] According to the plaintiff, an action was filed at the High Court vide case number WA-22NCvC-47-02/2023 to set aside the aforementioned High Court order dated 14.7.2022 (WA-24NCvC- 1276-07/2021) on the ground that the said order was fraudulently obtained by the applicant. However, the plaintiff’s action was transferred to the Shah Alam High Court because the Kuala Lumpur High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with lands located in Selangor. [24] The plaintiff averred that the power of attorney produced by the applicant had been forged and all of the facts submitted by the S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 applicant in this case were concocted lies. The document exhibited at TCK-8 also did not bear any weight because it was written in Chinese characters without any translations. [25] Plaintiff repeatedly submitted that the applicant’s application was made without merit and mala fide because the applicant had no legal interest in the said lands. The plaintiff further emphasised that the Sepang Land Administrator had awarded the plaintiff with compensation in the sum of RM17,783.00 in consideration for the TNB Electric Supply Project on Lot 369. However, the compensation remained unpaid pending the transfer of title. [26] The plaintiff submitted that the said lands were never part of the Toh Bu Yong’s property. Exhibit TCK11 (Originating summons NA-24 NCvC-190-08/2017) produced in the applicant’s affidavit proves that the said lands were not listed as part of Toh Bu Yong’s estate when the applicant was appointed as the sole administrator for Toh Bu Yong’s estate. E) Court’s Findings [27] My upsum of Enclosure 32 is this, the applicant wanted to intervene because according to the applicant, the said lands belong to the applicant’s deceased father. Conversely, the plaintiff argued that the applicant had no interest in the said lands because the said lands belonged to the plaintiff’s deceased father. Clearly, both parties had opposed versions on the ownership of the said lands. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [28] The applicant merely cited Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RHC2012) in general terms but did not specify the exact limb of Order 15 Rule 6 of RHC2012 that enabled the applicant to intervene. [29] Presumably, the applicant’s application should fall squarely under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(i) and (ii) of the RHC2012. For ease of reference, the said Order 15 Rule 16(2)(i) and (ii) RHC2012 is reproduced below: 6. (1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter. (2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application— (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely— (i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or (ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter. (3) An application by any person for an order under paragraph (2) adding him as a party shall, except with the leave of the Court, be supported by an affidavit showing his interest in the matters in dispute in the cause or S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 matter or, as the case may be, the question or issue to be determined as between him and any party to the cause or matter. (4) A person shall not be added as a plaintiff without his consent signified in writing or in such other manner as may be authorized. [30] The wording of Order 15 Rule 6 RHC2012 above is plain and clear that the court has the discretion to order any person to be added as a party in a proceeding under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(i) RHC2012 if its presence is necessary to ensure the dispute be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated or under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(ii) RHC2012 if there exists a question or issue arising out of or connected with any relief or remedy claimed. [31] It would be apposite for me to briefly state here that the application of Order 15 Rule 6 RHC2012 and its test to succeed have been discussed in a plethora of cases and among others is the Supreme Court case of Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd v Jamaludin bin Dato Mohd Jarjis [1991] 2 MLJ 27; [1991] 2 CLJ 862. In this case, it was held as follows: [1](a) One of the principal objects of O 15 r 6 of RHC 1980, which replaced O 16 r 11 of Rules of Supreme Court 1967, is to enable the Court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the action without giving this person an opportunity of being heard. [2] As a result of Gurtner v Circuit, a person who is not a party is allowed to intervene if the intervener is directly affected not only in his legal rights (as provided for under O 15 r 6 RHC 1980) but in his pocket. (Emphasis added.) [32] The applicant was correct in referring this court to the decision of the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 2 MLJ 52 on the applicable test to intervene. In Pegang Mining, Lord Diplock explained whether a person can be added as a party in the following words: … one of the principal objects of the rule is to enable the court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the action without his being given an opportunity of being heard… A better way of expressing the test is: will his rights against or liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in the action? (Emphasis added.) [33] Against the above legal setting, before this court can entertain any application to intervene, overall facts relating to the subject matter must be dealt with by the court to determine whether the proposed intervener will be affected by the legal action. To my mind, to deal with the related facts, this court must be vested with the jurisdiction to do so. [34] Unfortunately, the subject matter of this case involves two parcels of land which is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate. In this respect, I refer to section 69 of the SCA1984 which states: Section 69. Exceptions to jurisdiction. Sessions Courts shall have no jurisdiction in actions, suits or proceedings of a civil nature— (a) relating to immovable property except as provided in sections 70 and 71; [35] The restriction on the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction from dealing with immovable property had been reemphasised by the Court of Appeal in Peh Wee Lee & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Sembilan & Ors [2018] 5 MLJ 269, wherein the Court of Appeal ruled: [17] …the sessions court is generally not clothed with the necessary jurisdiction to deal with immovable property/land. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [36] On the contrary, section 71 of the SCA1984 gives an exception to the Sessions Court to deal with immovable property if all of the parties interested provide their consent. section 71 of the SCA1984 states: Section 71. Jurisdiction to adjudicate on title to immovable property with consent of parties. If in any action or suit before a Sessions Court, the title to any immovable property is disputed, or the question of the ownership thereof arises, the Court may adjudicate thereon if all parties interested consent; but, if they do not all consent, the Sessions Court Judge shall apply to the High Court to transfer the action or suit to itself. [37] Guidance on the operation of section 71 of the SCA1984 could be found in the decided cases. In All Best Resources Sdn Bhd v Wong Yoke Lu [2015] MLJU 991, the High Court ruled: This statutory provision allows the Sessions Court to adjudicate even when there is dispute on the title to any immovable property if consented to by the parties. If there is no such consent, the Sessions Court judge shall apply to transfer the suit to the High Court. [38] In the same vein, the High Court in United Highlands Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Endah Sari Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1300 held as follows: [25] In my view, the requirement of consent under section 71 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 can be satisfied by showing a Defendant has expressly in writing or impliedly by conduct consent to the Sessions Court to adjudicate on title to immovable property. [39] I prompted the applicant and the plaintiff on 18 July 2023 about the restriction imposed by section 60 of the SCA1984. Therefore, the immediate legal conundrum that needs to be resolved first before anything else is whether this court is prevented by section 60 of the SCA1984 from dealing with the subject matter of this case. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [40] In this respect, I invoked Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 which permits this court to decide on questions of law that could dispose of the entire issue at hand. Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 states: Order 14A. Disposal of case on point of law Determination of questions of law or construction (O. 14A, r. 1) 1. (1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that— (a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and (b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein. (2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just. (3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question. [41] I found comfort in applying Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 based on the decision of the High Court in Krishnan Rajan A/L N Krishnan V Bank Negara Malaysia [2003] 1 MLJ 149 wherein Abdul Malik Ishak J. (as he then was) ruled: Next, it would be the case of Thanaraj a/l Manikam & Ors v Lower Perak Tamil Co-operative Society [1997] 4 MLJ 82, a decision of Kang Hwee Gee J, where the learned judge said at pp 88-89 of the report: Ideally, the procedure for the defendant to adopt was to plead the issue in their statement of defence under O 18 r 11 of the RHC 1980. He could then follow up by an application under O 33 r 2 and if it appears to the court that the decision on the preliminary issue substantially disposes of the case or matter or renders the trial of the cause or matter unnecessary, the court may then act under O 33 r 5 to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [42] The decision in Krishnan Rajan gives the court the discretion to determine any questions that could substantially dispose of the whole cause of action based on Order 33 Rule 5 Rules of the High Court 1980. In our present context, a similar provision is Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012. [43] Following the mandatory requirement imposed by Order 14A Rule 1(3) RHC2012, I ordered both parties on 18 July 2023 to submit in their respective written submissions whether this court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter, particularly the applicant’s application. [44] The plaintiff did not offer any submission on the jurisdiction of this court. Be that as it may. However, I would be remiss in not mentioning my appreciation to the applicant’s counsel for being obliged to put forth a submission on the jurisdiction of this court to deal with the subject matter herein. [45] I found myself agreeable with the submission by the applicant’s counsel that, this court had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of this case based on section 69 of the SCA1984. Therefore, the aforementioned legal question is hereby answered in the affirmative. [46] This court also did not obtain any consent from all of the parties to activate the operation of section 71 of the SCA1984. I take cognisant about the mandatory duty of this court under section 71 of the SCA1984 to transfer this case to the High Court in the absence of consent by all of the parties. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so since the plaintiff had already obtained a judgment in default against S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 the defendant on 11 May 2022 before a previous judge. It would not be farfetched for me to say that this case has been technically disposed of. To date, there is no application by the defendant to set aside the judgment in default entered by the plaintiff. [47] In the absence of jurisdiction to deal with immovable property, this court was unable to deal with all matters that are related to it including the applicant’s application. I was inhibited from dealing with the merits of the facts affirmed in all of the affidavits presented by the applicant and the plaintiffs concerning Enclosure 32. It is my considered observation that the principles enunciated in Dr Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj v Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 5 MLJ 185 would certainly benefit the applicant only if this court had the jurisdiction to deal with the said lands. [48] The reasons adumbrated above would indeed dishearten the applicant, but this court had no other option but to dismiss Enclosure 32 with no order to costs due to want of jurisdiction. ………………Sgd……………….. Dr Azrol Bin Abdullah Judge Sessions Court Sepang S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCvC-154-09/2021

PLAINTIF SPECIFIC DIMENSION SDN.BHD. DEFENDAN M.E.I.PROJECT ENGINEERS SDN.BHD.

Mahkamah ini sedar bahawa sekiranya terdapat percanggahan berkaitan keterangan dan terdapat keterangan dokumentar yang jelas, maka mahkamah akan menerima keterangan dokumetar tersebut sebagai keterangan sokongan.Dalam kes HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BHD V WOO THIN CHOY [2015] 9 CLJ 706, Mahkamah Rayuan telah antara Iain memutuskan bahawa:“[40] We agreed with counsel for the plaintiff that the learned trial judge was clearly wrong in the circumstances, to ignore the weight of the evidence supported by documents (not disputed by the defendant) which had been adduced by the plaintiff and as opposed to that, to just accept the bare oral testimony of the defendant that he was authorised by Vincent Lye to act for BPH Lashedid”

12/01/2024

YA Tuan Azizan bin Md. Arshad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b64e88df-2506-4cfd-9be5-7c6cab925958&Inline=true

12/01/2024 17:23:50 PA-22NCvC-154-09/2021 Kand. 40 S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 34hOtgYl/Uyb5Xxsq5JZWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA—22NCvC—15I—09/2021 «and. 4c ,2/ouzm , 2: :0 IN THE HIGH couRT oF NIALAVSIA IN PULAU PINANG IN THE STATE or PULAU PINANG MALAYSIA wRIT oF SUMMONS N0:PA-ZINCVC-lS—0II1D2Z BETWEEN SPECIFIC DIMENSION SUN. EHD. (Company No.: 304294.41) PLAINTIF AND u.E.I. PROJECT ENGINEERS sum. HHD. (CarIIpIIIy No.: I1:4u4II) ...DEFENDAN (Hum lngemerwim] IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA IN PULAU PINANG IN THE STATE OF PULAU PINANG MALAYSIA WRIT OF suwaous N0:FA-22NCVC~154-DB/2021 BETWEEN SPECIFIC DIMENSION SDNA BHD. (company No.: M14294-D) PLAINYIF AND sw :MhD1qWuyb6X.uq5.IZWA 1 Nat! Sum M... M“ be used M mm I. nflmrufllv mm; “Mm. VII muwa VWLII M.E PROJECT ENGINEERS SDN. EHD. (Company No.: I13484—l|) DEFENDAN BAMAGIAII I Alum Penghnklmln [PA.2zNcvc-I5—MI2n22] [11 Im merupakin rayuan (Emndap Kapulusan Mahkamah nu yatelah permcman penuh Tunmmn Respoden (Plairml) Ierhadap Perayu lDelend:rI) lelan dlbenarkan dengan hos pads 14 12 ms Pnhak Periyu telah memlallkan rayuan Iemadap kesemruhin keautusan Iersebul [1] K25 In: lelah dldengar seremak dengan kes No PA—22Ncvc-15+ as/2021 kerana mehhaukan puhalvplhak yang sama letapl avas ;um|nn Iunmlln yang bemeza yang mana pad: mmanya kes Am anauxan an Mahklmah Sesyen kerana mmlahlunnnan nanya RM5110, ooo Manakala kas no PA—22NCVC»I54(J9I2021 dwanxan an Mahkamah Tmggn kevana nmmvan m IhlhlRM1 juu. [3] Perbicaraan kes um Isiah benangsuna salami 2 han dengan searing saksw danpada Pmak Respunden din 2 crang saksv daripada Perayu PIhak~pihak aalam Penghakxmin ml akan dlrmuk sebagavmana kedudukan merek: .11 Mahkimah Tinggi my Mankamah um sedav bahawi samranya Xsvdapat pemnggahan berkanan keleranvan dan lerdapal kmemngan dakumemlr yang ;aIas, maka mahkamih akan menanma kelarangan dakumetar larsebut sebagaw kelerangan sakongan mlam kn: Mo HUP cousmucnau COMFANV Bun V woo THIN cnov [2015] D CLJ 703. Mlhkaman Rnyuln lelah mar. lam memutuskan bahlwn “[40] we 39...: wrm wumx lurmv mawml! mm the leamzd mauudqe ms um, wrung m an cwwmihnzu‘ m gnu. the wmgm 01 me mam Iuppoflnd by docum-nil mm dmpubad by IM daiandlnn wmm had new adduced mne mamlm ma moribund m mm In ius\ Iwsvl Iho bar: can us:-mmeny m we defendant mm he was iummued by Vmmvu Lye to 2:1 fur awn Lashedm“ [22] Dalnm kas GUAN TEIK sun. arm. v HJ. MOHD. NOOR am. HJ. |2oo11ML.Iu Ins a man: Mahkamah Rayuan (e\Ih mamumskan um mam kelevungnn txmenungan dlbenkan dw nzdapan Mahkaman adahh nenjam Ianggungpwil: Mlhkamah bulsan ma‘: unluk rncnmizungkun katamngan sedemukmn nu: xmbnngnn Iuebamvglmlmn, leuplud-V-Murulmeruldx langgumuwlb Mnhklmnh unluk m-lmllhktnh lllnur pllwkxhun dan menmhlnnkan um memlm dokum-n-drzkuman ylng hcl-h manemlkan heuar am mamya sesualu ram Hakmu permcnnsan damn: kc: . mm ppm. gagzl menumpukan pemattannyi kepad: ksan pmhnm dakumen-dokumln Nahum Pfimnrian ulavu mcnemlu kmrangin lnan resomaen-vupmden, upmulnyl mlmmbungkln dangln flokumen-dokumm mm mamlll ..m.a. dnkunundokwmn Ilrsehul menyukmg kaleanqnn hsm mpmm. sw 34nD1uvI/Uyt:5xxsq51zwA ,, «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm Izxpundnn Pamll nwwogxnw mun Imltmunahak damn mam kg: m\ [23] Dalim kes mi mg. lerdapll mu sum. ad: perselwuin upaua penymeslxan tunggalun hayaran pmpk Iersebm adalah mumm-a dun tanpa synval serla manglkal pmak Hannnl darn Delendan Muhkamah um’ memmk up-as ken SEMI JAVA sun arm a. ANOR v DATO' nu AHMAD TARMIZI ru PUTEH I more [um I cu 11:‘ d: mana dlpuluskan hahaw: ‘nu what mm. 7 «an says ‘s snmmy um. Fm any mncmded agreement In cum: M0 exwllnu mm mm be 5 my Ind mm am By mo mm... Ind .n- mm and uvvuuahf-od‘I:cep1Inr.e ollhe lam: by the wave: The Dhmse ‘lhmlmn Ind Imqullfllid“ m cmu:I\ VII nut any auclflanue aoupxea wwm any sandman man may he a ‘ahsnlme and unqunlmetf ammanae u must be abwlula m Ihal a\I 1-mu tel um m me my mum he aweulad n musx be unqunlwued m mm ncraalamae .u.ma mu mudllmn u . qullrfied lcupunca OM: Iuch cunamovul aoeeplnmz .. on me mqmmmu ma! 0 In walk the pumu m umpry n-ax l0 me negauakma mode as [here a new . Dmmhv mm by m. nflaml winch n ma rexscu menwvosal \IVmdriam¥oHheonndmanalzwep1anne perse wound nm rewe ma ongmal awn Ody an mum. and Imqualifind .mpr...u M an mum nllnr by Ihn prupxnlr will :2... n. . culnludod nanlucllsmvnon ma prove an mm :22: An In mm man: u. m. Apwnnch m employ In nnnvellng the rum: nlulix In drhnnlu vmmnr p-me. nun ruched cwlnnaul m mm an mm-mu, an mm: Conn In Dluhcno am my arm Mar «am... am: a Ann! [2015] : cu 1DIl.rIuM\I¢ am In: nlmflnn ‘could my n. nl-In-d hum m. mar-duhlulhr, mu unailnlbtuvu um conduct al In: mus. mm -.m an ma ...u,.c-m mlnd, am upon a cnnudnrnllon of mm... cnmmunicabd lulwuvl (Mm ny wow: or manna,“ man an vinnecllvu of me mama: rlnnnablc nun." In «um wants, me «am an nbjoclivn um. [yenekanan news») [241 Dalam kes mu, keiarangan bahawa terdapak mac sebahk perssiuiuan kepad: penydesawan tunggakan yang benaxu ieplruang perhvcaraan adalah semata-mate berbenluk hsan fiada keterangan sokurlgan laln (2) Adakah nulnndnn znrhumug kepadi Plalmli amaun upnnlmuu ylng dltuntul clan PI-Imil at rllllm Pnnynann TImIul.|n7 [251 Dalam kes Im berdasarkan kelerangan dan Ivdak dlpenlkaikan pmsk-pnhak‘ maka Mahkamah W yuga menenma hwahan Peguam Plairml Yang Terpelijir bahaw: plhak-pmak man berseuuu unluk jumlah (unggakan yang masm aaa adalah sebanyik RM105 ma (setelan dvkurangkan dengan lolakan sebanyak RMB1435110 bag! 2 Mesm Dehumidrfiar dan dlskaun sebanyak RM2D6.D1251) yang masm perlu dlbayar oleh Defendan kepada Plamlii mu dmyatakan dalam ccc benankh 11 01 2019 Iersebul [29] seraasamn kapada kelerangsn‘ max dlpemkankan dan dnpameluml nleh Flalnm dan berpnndukan dukumen hahawa Defendan. dangda umlah lunggakan RM105 ma lelah membayav sewmlnh RM55o,uoa am berbaku sebanyak Rmsoomo Ingx aepem yang lelah mpemmm keaumuz plhak Jumran myaun Rmssamo .uga man dmkuu (enma nlah Plalrmldlnpada Dalendnn [27] Big! Iunlulan sebanyak RM2D6 um 51, Mahkamah mendapah Pmsk Plnlrmlhdak Vagi baleh menuntu! gunman Iersebul pafla penngkal ml Berdasarkan keterangan. gmak-giuak telah bevselu u kflakan dlhual bagi umran (umgakan dan cam. dmyazakan aaram final account berlankh 11 01 2019 Imam final account Juga amyacakan flan maankan bahawa mnggakan hurang adalah sebanyak RM1 05 ‘L113 selelah tmakan dlbuil bag: jumlah yang Ielah dlperselujul o\eh kedua-dua pmak. Memandangkan Iolakan (ersebm lelah mpersemjuu Keduafiua pwhak maka Mahkaman memuluskan bahawa pmak—p1hak naua Vagw boleh beniolakdallh sena mempemkatkan alau menukarkannya sekivang Kedua—dua pmak tenkat kepada /ma: accoul benankh 11 01 2019 dan tvdak bo\eh menirfikannyi alas spa alasan sekallpun kerans .a mbuuat alas kerelaan masmg-masmg ml Memandangkan plhlk Flemm me man mengakm dan bersetuw aangan mm:-n lersabul Ad-nan max wajav pmak Plalnlfl mbenkan kebebasan unuk mencnbar nan manumm scmula jumlah lenunggak lerssbul am. .-mun pemm xanu dzlum RM1 051m: Ilas alasun bahawa Delsndan Ielah gngar membayar ham RMSDDDOD (ersabul [:9] Dalam Ines ml, Mahkamah mendapan bahawa plhak Defendan lelah memenuhl sebahaglan danpadi Jumlah nmman lersebut sapam duanjlkan dlmana RM550.000 Ielah flnbayar sepertimana dvpersemuu. Make. max wwud keadaan dw mana Deferldan Ielah gsga\ Imluk memamm pelsetujuan tersebnl sepen-mm Kecerangan nsan plhak» plhak wax Iagw wen dvgunakan umuk memelaskan atau menaiikan mat pmak-pmak kauka peryemuan mcap Apabula peqanuln telah dnandatanganu‘ maka pmzk—pmak adalah lenkat umuk melaksanakannya [J0] Maka Plainm Ildak bemak kepada ;um\ah penuh lersebul yang dlkalakan hanya wapar dnnlak seluranya Defendsn gagal mematum perjanpan cacsemu, dan ]um|ah lersebul hams dlkembalnkan semula kepada lumlah asal (unggakan (lanpa sebarang Makan), semanya Defendan gags! msmalum perselujuan yang teiah mmasuk: Maruam hwah Plamm nahawa, memandangkan Deianaan telah gaga\ memalumnya, maka ]um\ah asa\ perm dlbayar [31] Namun Mahknmah IN memumikan hanzwa F\aIn(I|‘ hanyi bemak kapaaa wmlah penun nanpa mlaxan), seku-Anya Dedendan langsungtnizk memmm bayat-an kepada Plamm atau Ierdapal paksaan da\am menenma penyelesalan tarsemn Pefialsanaan sebahagian danpada paraemuan Iersehul idengan membayar RM500,000 danpada semmah RM1 05 Ma) menunjukkan bar-awa pvnamu-nak Ielah mekaksanakan persetuwan yang um-asum din dalim masa ylng sama Prainmaran pun mendapm laedah acaa panaxsanaan sebahagxan danpada le:ma—¢erma persamjuan tersebut [:21 Tindakan new-can yang man mamenuhl sebahaglan danpada Jumlah nunmxan yang Iekan dnperyemluu adalah selaras dengan xauarangan dokumenlar yang dlkemukakan dalam final awounl benankh 19012019 Pmamsmak adalah lenkll dengln persaluwan lavsebm, lamb-nan pma Deoer-can man membaynr sabamglen dlnpadl mmuan lungglkan an m pananuantamelzut. [:3] Hmah Defendan bahawa Delendan udak bemutang kepada P\amIv1 unluk squmlah Rmsmono on kerina Pm/scIAccounIyang dikemas klm pada 11 1 2019 admah Ianakluk kepada kepervuan Fasal saw; dan 53 7(5) Kanlrak Dehandan .uga menegaskan bahawu Fhlnlll udak pemah memamm perunlukan tersebut den sebahknya celan bemutang kepada Defendan sepeni mans aalam luntulan ba\as nu sampmg nu‘ Puamm jugs benanggungpawab kepada Defendan unluk kemsakan Gan keruglsn akibat kelewatan prqek din ma 2 um mesln Denumnmer {:4} Mahkamah (Idak meneumn human Defendan |e|:ebu| kerana p1hak~p\hak lenkal aengan peuenquan Da\am kcs R.SaravaIun Ram: Kllshnun 5. Anal v. Vlp chee La-mg 4. 0!! (men ms 541 yang memmusksn behawa >u .5 we“-eslabhsh VII the waw M sumac! mat a versnn who .5 a party «a a wnlfan mnlmct ws bound by Ina mm 0! nm comma whemar ov not he mduslsndl the Vanguagu nu wmcn .1 .. aacumanlad m In: nhuvlce 1:! ma ar mznnwuamllnm [:5] lm adslah selaras dengan puhsl awam bahavm seflap perjanuan muktamad hams dvbenkan penekanan flan kasan kuatkuaaa nan sag: perundangan Pnnsvp Im dlnyalakxn dangan was dalam kes r»-uucm ALAM HOUSING sun sun qruaunsmv KNOWN AS BUKIY cemxm nsvaomsur sun awn) v Menu consmucnou sou am: 5 ANOR [:01 41 1 pm 231, dlpumskan bahawa “[231 mm war a comprnmle human Ina Ippaflanl and ma rm resnnndem by way of . ismomun agvaemenl and mm ended me sum bmwaan the palms! Pubhc puncy demands malmare snuma be an Ind cg lmgalmn and live pa.-ues snmm be held to their buvgams Lard Rummy MR .n mu-nuay y HuvvuIH1E6E)2D LT 473. apny saw The Muhr an ma nuns smd nm men an Igmsmenl wu entered mm «ma mmpmmnse. one mama suppose, pnma «ma man me use was naua be Ined aver aga.n' [:51 Dalam mssa yang same dikwaan Dafendan bahiwa ferdapat sewmlah wang Ielah ameukan yang kanonnya mempakan p.n.aman wga bask xemuxn xacarangan yang dlkemukakan serli dokumen yang dlmiuky adalah .e|as bahawa xa merupakan junflah Iunggakan yang leLah dlpelselujul aleh pmak-pvnan berkailan dengan Jumlah yang sepammya dlbayar dan naua langsung bukli bahawa la merupakan ‘am/ancs paymenr kepada Fkamlif oleh Decenuan bagw membanlu Plauntn danpada lerpikss mengemarkan pekerjanya danpada lapak prqek Tlada Vangsung kelemngan nerkaxcan W yang mkemukakan bersena hukn unluk unpemmbangkan oleh Mahkamah "H (3) Aalknh Plnlnlil bamullng kapldl Delendnn unann- amaun suparnmana yang an-mun nlun norondan dlllm Tunlmnn En monk . [:71 Bag: mmman balas nula Mahkimah ini mendapali bahawa uaaa kelewatan yang amuknkan terhadap P\aInM dalam menyvapkan prujek Im memanaangkan «ana sebarang Iuntulan LAD dibuat a\eh Mani-man: pmak sama ada oleh Plainm bagl kamgian alas kelawalan melalul nova yang sah bevdasarkan kepada penmmkan komrak Tweda LAD wapr dnkenakan Iemadip Wamm‘ da\am kes W [as] Bemasarkan kepad: kelemngan yang mkemukakanllada sebarang LAD yang dlbayar oleh Dedendan kepada manamana plhak (Hershey) akvbal danpada uewewanan mamm Juga Ilada sebamng Nous Kelswatan mbenkan kepada Plamni mahahan Devfendan |e\ah membenkln perlarwlan masa kapada Plamm dengan max menga-nmr sebarang zmdakan Seklrsnya benar masa ada\ah pemmg, make xeweynanan .n. hams dlambul lmdakan secara khusus d1 bawah kunlvak dan lldak mamadax seluranya nous dwkaluarxan lelapw Ildak memaluhl Klausa 45 Knmrak Alas arasan mu sanaya pun sudah mencukupw bagx Iunnnan balls Deiandan dwlolak Jumlah lemebul bukanlah huhng aleh FVHIVIM IBIEW wanya adalah wang Mtensr yang dupegang men Delenuin nan yuga bukanny dvancs paymanr [:9] sm mga mengesahkan bahawi ma aebarang LAD mkenakan aleh mhak lamleflladap neaenaan Dedendan bemnqah bahawa dakwaan Plamnf yang Tumumn Ealas Defendan aaalan mm yang afiknkan kemudlan. msnnougnn maka SIM max Swap beninlm 2912 201a dan Sim Ingkar berlankh 25.12011 Iidak akan dikaluarkan oleh Defendan Defendan menegaskan bahawa keduaaiua SIN Inl telah dlkeluarkan sebelum Plalrml (elah memulakan prosidmg unaangunaang mi memhuktikan hahawa Tunoman B3135 Dafendan paslmya Indak dvfikurkan semuls Namun, uadalindakan dibuat aeaetah Nohstersebul dvkemarkan [40] Dalam Ives um mahkamah bersemu dengan hufihan Flam! bahawa Sekiyan 75 Ana Knnlnk, udak terpakai kevina lidak Ierdapal sabarang pemecahan konlrak yang dilakukan oheh Pramnf Tambahan puli PIainIrI bagv menumm LAD alas kelewinan acau kecacalan perlaksanaan Korvtrik Ini msankan dengan perakuan dan pengeluaran CCC sejak 15092016 Iagi Seharang penaksanaan pemecihan klausa konmk dan kegagalan perlaksanaan komrak mssli dibuat Iunlman berdasarkan kantmk nu sandwi lru adarah seIaras dengan kepntusan kes CUBIC ELECTRONICS snu BHD (IN LIGUIDATIONI V MARS TELECOMMUNICATIONS sou am) [2019] S MLJ15 ‘V01 we mm new to In mm on human :71 pm» me Inmal anus nu on me pally waking In emoroe a dung: umer . 15 :21 the An In Iddun: emdenne mat flnlty, mare was a Dream cf mnlrid and mat seeonam me mnlrid comams a dense specwymg . sum to he pmd upon new Once misc Mu lhmlnll have been as4:hIIslted‘ Ihe Innnnenl puny I! enltuefl In naewu . Ium nm Ixnumnn ma Imaunl Inuuliuad m In: uomrud muuedwe ommm mm dirvuga or Ina I. pmwvh wbIaI.1 always in me uevaum-v; parry pnmng me umeaumennenese Mme damsges clause Including me sum subed mam", ¢ any rm] In suruvury ma var mnvenimm, me pmVCI|zIul mu may In dmfllnl hum hvmnahuve are lhcse III on In) Ia» «emu mma\ onui Inn on ma vim seehuw to emuwe a damage: dam: nude! 5 75 o1IheAum adduee mam matflnfly‘ man: was a mam M wn|rarA and max aammry, Inc mnuaa aannamsa dause apeawmg a sum In an and upon lvvaach Ono: me» two eismemi ruva bean ulablwxhada me mnooum puny a mmaa (0 rwawc 5 um um mu-«mg (ha amount Inpulllnd m mu Dunlncl muaawvl M wruma mm: dlmlge 01 Ian - maven nubwfl amvx m ma dellultmfl nany wanna ma umawnaolan-as -11 me damages as-use muamg me um shied Ifiertm‘ it any‘ ind w my Eemasarkan kelerangun ma, Mans: 56 Ana Kuntrak vase juga udak b0\eh Iefvakax kzrana nada lunlulan all! KGVCWBXIH berdasarkln kunlvuk Isiah mbual malahin mus page Ielah dnealsv wen pmak-pmnk Dlllm kes SIM OHIO HUAT V WONG TED FUI [ISIS] I MLJ 1§I, dwputuskln bahuwa “Nawevev me rules namamed u. semen 5s m In cnnwnu Au me man dmemm hum ma pom» unwed alm eummun law mm mm Pang Rainy ua Y N; Km: Pang um; MLJ us as Thu polhon a :2». Wm . aomma m was um. V: at mu nuance‘ - p-rm to Dirluml n lay ma .uaax.:.a Mme‘ me mnaant puny his the "am erlher «a Miami 4». aama, m In man u :5 sun wbswslmy n ne lmats u annamn-ssry M w mmum as s11I\ mnunmng. (ha wmnd um: um um: ceases I.) na 01 the enema and became: M wage Consequenuy‘ he cannot clam: ma nqunanau dam-9:: my me mnlmrn unleu me u . pmrvhron n to me ammm of mm Nrmevuv. um nunlznn an 1» vwwnd am In me an bu muomd m an Mme aaama by ma Innocent vmy Inmng . now: In ma puny m aamn nwmu a new car: mwmmeban {See nuasan an arm a am NM: 5 am: mam wuuld be a uaca mm mm uqunaraa manages am be nulatzed In the p/uenuppeul, an Inn um: um me rupondemgwe name na ma wuenam Hume danses zo mam unmx be enlmned am J0-D1avI/Uyt:5xxxq5AzwA zn “Nana am n-nhnrwm a. med w may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm |.a1arbI|:kang km: [4] Melalui Surat Anugerah benlankn 2aA2m4 (“LOA“) Plavml |e1ah amannk nleh Delendan sebagav Sub-kontraklorunmk merualankan kegs. Xena yang d1ksnaI|sebagaIPakejP6000-Fenyaman Udara, Fengudaraan Mekamkal dan Snstem Air Fenyejukan Proaes bemllal RM66,U55,00U.00 ('Kena“) unluk Pmek knang baham unluk Hershey a: La! FTD mean‘ nsn saess Muklm Sena: Daamh Kulax Jaya, Jnho1('Pvujek“) [51 Manurul LOA‘ Plainm aan Defendan mamksanakan unluk Kans- Kena [‘Kamrik') berdisarkan konlvak vasml benankh 29 9 21:14 Kanlrak amara Plainlll dan Dalzmdan mengandunui amara lam, LOA dan (ankh penenmaan 2: A 2014 am: Karma Konlrak merlglkul boring smaam dzn syamsyarac Eorang Kamrak '\nsmus\ Jumtere Malaysia mew:-; urvluk Ken1a—kena Kemmtelian mekamkax darn ElekIrIk- Edm Kedua 2012 [6] Jurmera penmmng yang mlanuk unluk Prmek tersebut i:\a7I M.E.I. Perundmg Sdn Er-:1 (“Junnera'|dan1umlah pengekalan an bawah kentrak aumah RM3‘302‘900 00. m Tankh slip unluk Plamlii manylapkan Kena—Kaqa pan. mulanya adalan pad: 2a 2.2u15 Wmau bagaxmanapun, um kemudlannya dllarumkan kepadz an 5 2915 memu. peraetujuln burslma anllva Prmnnv dun Deiandan Fakla im uunk mpen mm Hawewuv, even me mum mums a mu: amw. clause or avun Wan mmeem pany lawn: a whee an the my m defimm Ieqmnng me mm m mmplele me week by 3 serum «mg, damages are na| as . mm. M course Iwaruod m lavnuv :11 the empnayev Gary m urcurluunon m WHEN m. ampluyor ov mu mm ». u: no wlyln mime Vullhc guy wnuki m. manna wilmg in slow damages Mmstnpluwl wmnbulu In mu dohy by miamg am work 0 : nanny mm; delay .. deivsnw Wuuuion at on mg, m M any amev muse no damuges wmfl ha mm [see Hudsm pp 625-623) [42] Damn kes EERJAVA TIMES saunas: sun arm (FORMERLV KNOWN As BERJAVA DITAN SDN BHD) V M coucsn sou arm [zo1n11 Mu S07, mwtuskan buhawr “[45] Yheve s arlemalne qmunfl vm mamg malume ‘s nananm assent: n n ma Tm vupLw¢5n\, though n mu m. ugh! Io pm -n Ind «a me m..u.a mm In: lranI\Iln| mm m mm m. ....n wxlhm mu m.,m...a lame. and not do so Vnslud. n eanhnuefl mm niymants and neooununfi vu dam/=VY The vewumarvrs covndmz cerhmly pmnts tu me conduinun mm mm .1 mm wt: M Ihe ssenm when me comma wu mane (spealung ameam noeaseflwhen1Hhe$enae There are many amhurmas cum: u.u..a B-nIfin¢\\m1l\uen\In rnemy mu m Ina]mgmen|o1 n. Azlnn sm 4 In Hm am n...m.... man w y m Wang Kup Slug V Jnrlm Ruhbm am. Lm|I9s9]1 MN 245 mu: m and One: me um: kx mmpmnn VII .uw...s «u pun And me pm. .....n on mgmurmg (hen mm wu no longer M m. enemas of he comma am In: fleieudalrs mus! I've I veawnzbla ncmoe M llmr wmalmon In airman lhe uunhzd fl me Izililwe 111 mu purchue moi‘?! was no‘ Band (W&b vHughe:|1£7fl) LR 10 Eq 2m Mn2M.SImkneyvKeeme -sAnm[1915]Ac33smp423y u m. a.mm. ma ... ma vary any 01 an Novumber use . m. mm: nan: lnroomvlatum M. I..." sum, (Mu daemon would have been mm mm: wn Mme swam): and llvtvuld haw: sm 34nD1uVI/Uyt:5xxsq51zwA 21 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm heen vmvlr cm mam m we nave: an he dly fix-d Var mmp¥e|mn mm mzywumd abandon mmmm hulanerqomg on negalwmtnglheysnauld have gm. miserable now: mlizy V Thomas (1567) U? 3 ch APP an my Delendan menegaskan bihawa Flalrmf bemmang kepada Defendan semmlah RM3‘302_90D on sebagaw Ganllrugx yang dlpasfikan pengwaan berdasarkan knntmk Kerana Plammelam menangguh dalam menylapkan Kana mereka se\ama Iehm daripada so nan sepem yang drakul olen Planmfl da\am priamg mereka Im seterusnya melayakksn Defendan menumm jurmah penuh Kerosakan ssbagal LAD din dilolak danpada ]um\ah renlsrmon sums sebanyak RM3‘302,900 on yang dnpegang men Devenaan bemasarkan Hausa 46.1 Konlrak hadasarkan kepurusan kes Mahkamah Persemuan damn. cuanc ELECTRONICS sou am an uoumnncmp v runs TELECOMMUNICATIONS so» am: (2019) zcu 12:. [44] Saknranya mum kslawman auuwx (erdapat 3 lankh karewaun den eaklnnya Mahkamah mangammx yang paling awal dnnpad: ligl (3) Ilnkh allemzmf Im mnu 15 3 2015 terdupal keiawzlan sehml 77 nan lm mm barkesan Iknn mambcxanxan nmanaan menpenakan LAD makslmum sabanyak RM3‘3D2‘90O no .1: bawah konlrak sepem yang dlkemukakan dalam hujahan sebsluru In: Sekwanya menuamw Iinkh hanya unxuk mass kerwazan selama so han makl LAD maksmlum Idalah sebanyak RM3,3U2,§uIl no 145; Deiendan nemuyar. uanawa, la adabh slkahtanggap bahawa hany: kerana plhak kellga Iidik mangenlkan LAD ke alas Defendan‘ Defiendan lldak sepalulnyi menuntm LAD danpada Plamm Defendan menegasklrl bahflwa Kormak antara Plalrmldan nevman hukanlah kunlvak back to back yang memeriukan pmak keliga untuk mengenakan LAD sehemm ueveman men rnengenakan perkara yang same kepada sub- konlrikxomya sapem Plalnlfl dalam kes mu Alas sebib vm, Ivdik ada man.a—mana da\am Kunlrak yang menyatakan bahaws Konuak hendaklah dnbaca secara back to back Ierulamanya apabua Ia nerkaman dengan pengenaim LAD [45] Salu-ulunya pvmyavac unluk Devendan menunlul LAD danpada Plamm mm mengemarkan SW max Slap sepem yang dnailpkan dalam Kllusl 45 241) Knnmk sepem yang umnan dx Dew: : 4.: c.m_..m..«-...«u. u. .....:........,.......... y....,.. ..............n....u..y...~ .......m ..,......,..c_........m....u .......y... M. ‘In-nI\*:—\|-unthylnl n......-..M...y.(.y.....‘.= ..<..:....n...r.-um. m x. n..,.. ma ..y.... mm .. mu...“ .. \h:(\~u1-an Infll\51y\H»4 um. »-4.... _ M-1 y. W: nlrvqlmun y. uh IN.-on _ &n .....« P: o. «.y.._..x x.. .....,‘.». (M. MN-1 ¢_...y.. y.. ..y . ...y.. M y......._...y n. u, m rum. IMAM ......», an... m y.m..._.. .. M... y .. Lxnau . I-nly ..‘..y....n=.y.....m:u.me.,...m. _y.,.m..,...a..y.r...(...».<\...y... [47] Mankamah mendapau hahuwa kedun-dun syn um (Blah dxkmuarkan wsmlah lebm 1 luhun nlapas Bar-ng ccc (Borang F) dwkemarkan men Kcnsunan dlnlellh memperukul bahuwa ianya adllah salnmaman Iaynk didudukx lnl -man pnm Iacis xemangm bah-we Ianyn man mp aepenuhny: Bagalmlna sun Penikuln mm s. balah dnkeluarknn pad: 2512 2015 an Cenlicsta of osrau/1 bulah dikeluanun p-an m 30-D1avI/Uyt:5xxxq5AzwA 1: mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm he mm-y mm: dun-mm y.. mum pm 26012017 setelah ccc lelah dlkeluavkan flan naaa sebaring keterangan bahawa vanya uduk dlluluskan men Majlla Psrbandarin Kmal‘ musavnya Sekvinya I8 dikeluarkan keran: alas mu 2 um: Mesln Dehumidifier maka Nous tersebut adalah maak selaras dengan Klausi kanuak nan LAD max boleh dnunlut DI bawah Klausa 47 3 (1) (h) was menyacakan bahawa Juruteva boleh udak memperakukan kena—ker}a Iersebul seklmnya max dlbual mengxkut spesrfikasw Tlada cam dalam kes um bahawa pendapal an bawah Mama 47 3 (1) (b) Konlrak ml Isiah GVKEVUEMBH Mel! Defandan Kepada Flamlll Maka aplbrll sun Perakuan Swap te\ah dlkeluarkan maka wanya ada\ah selaras dengln maksud dl bawah Klausa 47 3 Konllak Iallu Ianya celah slap an “M9 works hsva passsd BU Ills test under (he wnlracf Jldl urlluk LAD dl bawah K\ausa 46 dwgunapakaw men Delendan bag! LAD maka sun :1: bawah K\ausa 47 Knnlrak tweak boleh mperaxukan oleh Konsullun P|aIn|il Apabfl: SIM CCC dlkeluaman, maka Deiendan (Idlk bolsh lag: mengaluarkan sum Perakuan max Smp aacarn kabelaknngln sepeni mlna yang cubs dllikukan olen Devendan dI\Im kes Im [43] Bag: dakwaan bahawa Pkamm bermnang kepsda Dafsndan sebanyak RMm72,s44.2a yang mana wmlah RMI,S2§,955 72 yang telah dlbayav Kepada Plamm oleh Defendan adalah bayaran vendahuluan yang dibuat alas pevmmcaan Plamm, maka Dalandan sepammya dlbenarkan menunlul jurnlah mi lni kerana ntengnkulsuransural P\aInM yang memima bayaran permanuluan dan sebagaumana yang Ielah auakukan onen Plainml pada masa lalu. Bag! muahan im Mahkamah mendapain llada seaarang sukongan bamm pembenan Iarsehul aaaran unmk advance payment kapada mam sepemmana yang few: duelaskan sebemm mi Mankaman menalak lurmnan am K-aimpulm Tmmn-n PI-um! [A9] Alas wmbangan kebarsngkalvan, Mahkamah menaapau hahawa Plaxmil Ielah benaya membukukan kes lerhadap Detenuan dan Mahkamah dengan ml membenankan Iunlulan P\aInlIf sepem benkul up Tunman sehanyzk RM500 nbu |erhIdap De4endan adalah dubenarkan nu) Faednn sebanyak 5 % avas ]um\ah RM500 nbu darlpadn lankh 11 a1 2012 sahmgga penyewesanan sepenuvmy-, can (In) Kos sebanyak Ruse nbu dtbayar oleh Deflendsn kepada Plamm temakluk kepada alokmur. Tumuun sun Dmnum [so] Berdasarkan kepsda slasan yang dmyatakan an alas, Mankan-an msndapall atas Imbengan keharangkallan. Deiendan (e\ah gaga\ membukllkan kesnya lerhadap F\aIrmi dan msrumuskan sepem benkul my Maka dengan ml mnnnam bales Deiendan lsmadap Pkalmw drtulak (u) was penmah alas kos EANAGIAN ll Alum Panghaldman [Kn Na PA.22Ncvc.1s4—w2o21] [sq Memandangkan kes Im dldengar seremak, dalam Fenghakxman Im. Mahkamah udak akan mengurang. fakla kes dan juga vsu yang lelah ummungxan maauam kes No PAr22NCV(‘/15471/2022 Eagw muan penghakxman Kes m, Mahkamah menegaskan m sum bahawa Alasan Penghaklman dmam kes PA—22NcvL;15o1/2022 men dlanggap sebagal sebanagnan danpada Alasan Penghaklman bag! ks mi seklvanya terdapat pemnflman Asu dan fakla sena alasan yang lelah dlbenkan bag! bag: membclehkan pmakpmak menggunapakai alasan da\am kes PA- 22Ncvc45—o1/2022 ueysamwsama penghakwmsn bagl ke: ml (K33 No PA—22NCVC-I54-09/202!) [521 K35 um dldangav hevsekah dengin kel PA-22NCVC-15-01flD22 um xinyl malmackan lunlman Pramm Iemadap Delandan bag: menunlul semul: wmlan RMa74,951 m aklbat Iolaknn 2 um! Masin Penyahidvatan tensebul dan RM2os,o«215 yang xeran aupersemm unluk dlikaun seklrinya usual mamaluhl persetuwan vm [531 Jummh mnlulan terssbul dmum oleh Pxainm berdasarkan kepada final aceoum benankh 11 012015 my (elah dlpersehuul uleh pIhak- pmak Torakan wmlan (arsenal dxperaaium aleh Fkalnm alas alasan bahawa behau Ingm mendapalkan wmlah hayaran sehanyak RM1 as juta dalam camm 2019 Isu-llu dmlcnralun lal Adakih lerdapal pedanjvan antara P\smM a. Delendin berlarikh 11 1 2019 men9ena1Ak:un mm anlara mam dan wenaanv an Adlkah Dafendln berhmang kepadz Plmrmiwabanyak 5ou,oou.oo sapem yang mum-n dalzm Penyala Tunlutarfl (c) Adakah Dmnuan mempunyan nan unluk memotong wmlah RMB74‘95l 1a untuk 2 Dahumldmev danpada Plamn my mam mesu menu remedv yang mereka mgm Iakukan umuk mengelakkan pemullhan berganda (2) same ads Dehumidifier yang dwbekflkan alah Plaintfl Iidak memenuhi spesmkasn an Adakan Devenuun mempunyll luk unmk mamolong Jumlah RMa14,951 1a unluk 2 Dehurmdifler flnripnda Puamm Analiu am aapaun Mahkamah m Adakah Iemlpal Denlrulan Imam Pumas. Delendan bmankh 11.1.2019 mengsna1Akaun Akhll Inlara Plamm dun Defendarfl IN 30-D1aVI/Uyh5xxsq5AzwA 7 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y M. dun-mm VI] muNG pm Dan (b) Adakah Delendan bemulang kepada Plainm sehanyak 500,000 so aspen: yang dmunml dalam Penyafa mmmanv [54] Mnhkamah akan merumuskln asp-ran [1591 (a) man (by W sacari seremak Plalnlfl mandakwa bahuwa Akaun Pmjek yang dlkamaakvm pad: 11 012019 bukanlzh akiun muklamad aan hanyalah pengamalklruan akzun Plamui bemubunq dengln Iknp kaqa Plamuf menuvut Knnlrak In hunya Akiun Frojek yang dvkemasklni pads 11:21:19 nan hnrvyalah pmgsmaskunnn akaun Plairmf berhubung dengan skupkena P1 Iilmenumtkomrak Akaun Fvojeklariebuladalah dengan jelas din nyila bamyant dan sarna sekah Iiduk bermaksud muktamad [551 lm dapal uumac aengan yams berdasarkan kandungan Akaun Pmyek yang dikernaskml pads 11 1 2019 Deiendan selamulnya mengemukakan bahszwa Akaun Pmjek yang dikemas klm pads 11 1 2019 bukanlah akaun muklamad dun hanyalah pengemaskmlan akaun Flam bemubung dengan skup keqa Plamlll menumtxcmrak Akaun Prqek tevsebul mam. dengan jelas flan nyaca bevsyarat dan same sekaln ndak bermaksud muklamafl PII In bemujlh banawa apablla manenln kandungan Nmun Prmak yang dlkemas km: pada 11.1 201%: man: :2 dlnyatakan dengin jalal bnnawa akaun lemebul adalah rsnakluk keplda Klausa 55114) din 597(5) Kanuak sepem yang mgambarkan m hawah sn ......._...........u.u H. u. « 4-Ann: .\. .. .... . mm. ..“.3..‘_ ....m_ M... m .. .. .... ..‘ IJm—\ .4... .., mrm .... M... W... .m am. who ... an-v-N ....... .. . [....... .n.‘c..._w.-. IV(I[hhfV‘VK mm m ms.......- ....u..,um....».m...,.....«.«..w.m...M. ........._..;~_.........c..........».....,..._.......n.. m V. ...n...... ._ .,. .....,.o.,»..m.—m.. ..‘..,..... .n.M.~ M... MD: W.....n...............m.=...m.x.....«¢»...........n.n‘-... m n. n... ...‘ ‘... .. mm ».,... c...m... an». ,.»...M... M... ....m _m...m.......m..........=..,»...._.n..m..a...,:u...n,..mm [56] Menurul Klaus; 55714) knnlrik maanut, Pmmw hanyn buhh um-ya: sepnruh danpaea Jum\ah Ramu allu Had Pangaknlan map: lenakluk kepada sun B-yarln lnlanm mum mkaluarknn cleh Jurulara Eda mag my gama umasa Jugfig maggguarkgn 5: §i§2 Kerg kapadl Plamm naram Kunhk lersebut, bag: mongalakkan xekel-rum Mukan kepada 'Komraktor“ dahm Kommk adalah merujuk Kepada Plamm [571 Java dnujuk kepeda Hausa 551(5) puls memperuntukkan bahawi Jumlera mesh mengeluarkan sim Bayaran Inlenm unluk pelepasan bakx Jurmah Smlpanan acau Had Fengekalan gas: mass Eng ssma aemasa gums: mengaluaman gm Membual Kenaoalan aw. [sq Defandln bemuph nan-w. im leluh dinyatakan dnlam Pnyacl Account din mp-t unmet dunner! mu an m klndungln yang dikemi: mm pads 11 12019 Dofsndan bemujnh bahawa Plalmfl man gagal m 34nD1uVI/Uyt:5x><sqmzwA mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! mengemukakan sebavann memngan dan bukn bahawa kepenuan Fasal 59 7(4) din 55 7(5) Kontvak larssbul celan dlpenuhl Berdasarkan kepada account lersebul -a bukan account muktamad Oleh nu. adalah Jekas bahawa lvada Akaun Akmrdlbuaf pads 11 I 2019 an Mamlriudak berhak unluk menumm ;um\ah Rmsouooo oo [59] Dakwaan Plslnm pma Bahama behau berselwu mas dasar umuk penmupan Akaun Fmjek tersebul dapal dxhua| dan Delendan akan membayar RM1 as ma kepada Defendan Jumlah RM105 pm akan albual dalam dua (2) kalx bayaran mm sebanyak RM550.0D0 pan 11012019 din RMSDQODO |Ig\ dalam bulan Jun 2019 [cu] Dahwaan P\aInIIf hahawa bayaran panama sebanyak RM550,0DD no yang dtbual cleh Devandan pada 1112019 zdalah femadap mana-man: akaun muktamad adilah bo\eh dnerima kerana hada kelerangan buyarin um sebnnyak RM550,00000 sebenamfi memnakan biyaran vendahuluan yang dibuat o\sh DeVendan alas perrnlnlsan Plairml mas langsung cacatan di mans-man: dakumen hahawa we merupakan pungaman kepada P\a|nhf Jam adalah jelas hanawa jurmah RMSDQDDO bakl yang am-mm adalah mnasman bavaran prolek vm kepada mamm (c) Aflakah Delendln mempunyal nuk unluk memomg Jmnl-n Rue74.951.1o Imluk 2 nohumlulnu durlvadz Pulnm M P\aInlIi um dapaf menywapkan Kane-ken: lersebut pm 3052015 Aknzama. Jurulsra mengemaman Saul max Swap (‘cNc'p berlankh 213122016 menumt Klausa 452 Knntrak cm: lersebm memperakm bahzwa mam-v telnh glgal un|uk melaksimakan merlgxkul speslfikasi :1! Dawn Knnlrak dakam mass yang diperlukan la] Femkanan mum: apablla Plamm mg: gagal memasang dan memasllkan um! nenum-amer barfungsx menglkul Kumrik Selepas mu, Jurunm mangemarkan sum lngkar berlankh 2s12m7 kepada Plamm menurm mass 51 1 Komsk yang memperakm banawa Flamm lelzh mgkar dalam nbhgasu kanllaknya m1 Serimul 3 arina saksw lam: mp-mi: mu Lam Chas Woni (sm), 1: Thin Shaau We! @ sopma Than» [snz] dan Data‘ Sen Vr um Kck Khang qsna) lsu-isu ylng dlhicnrnkan [11] Sumasl permcar-an penun, figs (3) us-mu benkm «am mkamukaxan mm (1) Adakah persehquan m amara P\aInIIl‘ dan Defendan bemankh 11 oxzme suanu "W18/30004lflf'dl antana Pllmm den netenaanv (2; Adakah Deflundin berhulana kepndu P\aInM amaun separllmanl yang «mum: elm P\amIfl di di\am Fenyilaan Tumulan? sw 34nD1uvI/Uyt:5xxxq51zwA o um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm :51} Delendan msrmakwa Pkamui Ielah bemutlng dsngan Delendan unmk wmlah sepem yang ditunmt dalam Tunlutan aauaa den Dafendan berhsk memomng [IAm\ah RMB74‘!-751 IO unmk 2 um! Meslrl Dehumidifier danpada P\amM kemna polnngan Im lelah mpeysexuyuu oleh Plamm memandangkan 2 unn masm nenummmer wm (idak mamenum spesmklsw kuntmk nan men nu Plamwexah gage! mememmr kewaupan sepemmana dalam konvlrak ancava mam dan Delendan Delendan menvalakan bahswa pecahan Iunlulan dapat dipacahkan sepem benkm 1;) Tunluan Kamsakan untuk yumxan RMa,au2,soo on, my ca, hahk unlukJumVah RM1‘172‘S44 2e, dan my Bayaran Fendahuluan RMI,629,955.72 [51] Eerdaslrkan keierangan sedva ada Mahkamah menaspm bahawa Plamm berhak menunlul iemula yumlan RM874.9§l 10 aknbal Iolnkan 2 um Mesm Panyamaracan lersebut dan RM206.DI2 15 yang lelah mpersetuym unluk mskaun sekuranya gagal mematuhu perseluman ml [63] sepem yang wan u-pmuskan dawn Kes PI¥22NCV<‘/1501:2022 uaak tevdapal kelewalan dw pmak Plamm dllam penyemaan 2 unn Mesm Dehumxarfier (Penyamdralanl Penyahlembepan) temebul, letlpx kelewalan yang «mum ada\ah dlakibalkan oleh wsu mcsln (ersebu| yang mana bukan dv dalam k:w:\an Pllmul lalapl clan pmak pembekal [64] Bevdasurknn vakta kes Ierdipal 23 unit mesin yang ek:\kun dun hanyi 2 unit sarma yang maniidl usu Pinak-omakxal-h bemnuju untuk lcflakan Irv dlbual dun dmyanakan dalam nnal aacou! dan vanya telah dlpersetuiui dan dlfandatangaru Sama ada wajar alau max Dem .k pmyak, Hershey 1'FemHIk') menunlul 2 mm nenumvdmar yang dilempah sendun berdasarkan «am kes mw Defendan bemnan adalah wa.ar dan sememangnya munisabah bag: Pemlllk unluk menunml 2 um’! Dehurmdnfier kerana yang mbekauen oleh sub—kamrak(erIpembeka\ Pkaxntif yang dwkflangkan dv Vndva Isiah gags! unluk memenum alau mememmv spesifikaaiyang dnperinkan an bawah Konlvak [55] Bag: Planrml pma Iunhnan rarnaaup RM874,9511D flan RM2oe,u12s1 ada\ah kevan: kagagalan Daaenaan unmk mematum ayarax pembayaran yang neran mpaaemym Flamlxl mendakwa persenuyuan Iersebul hanyl drhenkln acaa syarat unmk penutupan akaun flan Delendan berseluyu menmnyar nan RMSHQDOD (mzunun deflam xe FA~22NCVC-15-K71/2022) [es] Plainul berhugah bahzwa kegaqalan membayar mangmn persetujuan eersebur menyebabkan Mam bemak unluk mendapa: semula keseluruhan inmlnh yang anorak da¥am Imal account (ersebm Mahkamuh mandlpmv bahlwl Flnlnfll harhak kspada xumuun (enema bukamah maauankan olah kegaullin Halnlil memenuhl mm lenebul, Ketapx adzlflh kerana kagagalln mamltum pembekzlan Z Um! mesill Dehum Ifier usrsebuladalah kerana hndakan oleh pembskil ylng an my kiwahn PVSVIM lm dlbukllkin dannarl sum pembekll Ilflu Ely A An’ (M) sun Ehd untuk muatifkasikan keclcalan temehul In: mempakln -racrwy defect’ yang bnkan dliebabkln oleh mam my lemuktl dengan nanya 2 uml mesln nanun-iamar um. yang bermasalah danpada 23 unit yang dIbeka\kan Delendan AUDI ndak membuat sebaranw aduan herkauean mesm yang «em dIbeka\k:n Iarsebuf (o) Sum: Ida nohumlamor ylng dunk-nun oloh Flllnllf uank mamnmml up-aimmn [en Huyanan navenuan pma lelakan lemadap 2 um! mesm Denumiamer Iersehul adalah wayav kerana Deienuan terpaksa membetu 2 unit Mesm oehunudmer Iersebm danpada Hershey USA dan Pia-nm periu membayamya sebsgal ganli kepada 2 UN! mesln Denummmev yang dvbekalkan yang udak mengxkm spesnfikasn [cs] Ham-1 Dahlwa 2 um: masm Dehumxdufier yang dubekalkan man Pllmlrmdak memenum speamkasx aaaxan yelas danpada keierangan yang dnkemukakan semasa pavhlmvazn flan Ianpa seam: pun keraguan Manurul Konuax, Plamlrl perlu membekal aan memasang 23 Dehumldlfiav 2 danpad: Denummmer Am mak memunuhi speslfikaax knnlrak Ianu. DEH~K\SS-1 darn DEH-FLEX- [as] ManaKa\a Plamhf pula berhujah bahawa 2 Unrl Mesm Denum-dim cersemu maslh amen berfungsi dan mnenkan jamman oleh plhak yang membekilkirvya Iailu Bry — Av ( M) Sdn End Mas alasan w Prams: berhwah Ianya mak amen dmmlnt lemadap Hamm kerana Defendan sepamlnya memberikan peluang kepida Planmn unluk menyelesalkannya dan hukan (ems mandapatkan aanpada pemheka\ vam nan menumut bayaran danpada Puamm rm] Eerdasarkan lakla yang felah dunyacaxan sebelum Im umakan pembekalan \ersebuI adalah dlluav kawauan Plalntfl Plhak Plalrmlberhak menunun kepada yumlnh ml kavan: nada buklx bahavm kebvmlan berkanan rnealn dtsebabkan (flail Plaxntlf Ietsni sehenamya VSU bekaman ada\ah temang spesvfikasl mesm tersebul yang dlluar kawalan Plalnllf Juaa terdapal bukfi bahawa Hainlw xaran membeh 2 um: mssln Danunuamav yang haru danpada pembeksl Vain lanpa memberikan peluang Kepada Plamtn‘ unmk merallfikaswkanya sepemmana le\ah duamm cleh pembekal Pmik Defender: sawayamya mendapalkan persewjuan F\amlIi «anamn dahulu kerana aaauan yaxas me\alui komumkasi yang wuyua (I) Mann omnuan nmnpunyal hlk unmk memolong Jumllh nm14.m.1o unluk 2 Dalmmidfller ampu- Puinun [111 Eigl xsu -n-, Mahkamah Ialah menyalakan sebsmm mu Defendan Ivdak bemak unluk meno\ak ‘man in: kerana 2 Dehumidifier yang le\ah dlperuleh dan mpesan olen Penullk sewawmya mbayar olen Defendan sendm kerana Deaendan max membenkan pemana kepada P\aInlIf untuk merahfikaslkanya vmlaupun xaran dibenkan makmman bahiwa Mamm hersedia berbual aemman rm Du samplng ma juga Delendan berrwah Plamm mean memllm remedv yang rnareka mgln lakukan unluk mengaxakxan pemuhnln bergandn Mlhknmah bersmum dengan hujahan Delendan hanawa P\amh1 ndak bumak kepada pemulman herganda rm Namun berdasarkan kepada perselujuan yang Aellh mcapau, maka ;um\ah W telah dlsahkan o\eh Plamm unluk mmuak, maka Plalnm Ialah melepaskan haknya kepada Defandan den max wen msnunlulnya kembah kerana sakiranya uni mcenaman, maka nnaracccunman mnlulan da\am kea PA—22NCVC—1501l2U22 yang berdasarkan kepada final account ml akan Ierbata\ Lian mi seam benanlangan cengan mat pthak pmak yang Ielah bersemju den mengesankan mmxan yang le\ah dlnyalakan aawam I/nal aocounfberlankh 11 01 2019. [74] Mahkamah belsemju dengan muahan Feguam Delendan Yang Terpe\a;aI bahawa la akan maruums kepuda lunlulan berganaa lemadap Dcvencan dan am msmhual Flamllldlperkayakan tanpa wajav sekuanya Iunlulan Am dlbenarkln lenpa panyelarasan dubual oreh Mahkamah [75] Fkalntif da\am No PA—22NCVC-15-01/2022 menymakan bahawi /msl account Ie\ah mseduakan pada 11 12019 flan semmlah RM5oo,oou no cemmang ulen Defendan kepad: P\amM Walau bagavmanapun, Plamm dmam ha! vu menyaxakan Had: akaun akmr dan bahawa Plaimvf kunonnya cemak menunlm jumlah RMB7A,s5I 10 umux 2 um: mesln Dehummmer nan semmlah RM206,012 51 Iagl Keduadua dakwaan w bentanggah amara salu sama lain. P\amlIi mesh memlllh (unlman alau remedl yang Inglnkan. [76] Earkanan dangan Iolakan 2 mm mlsln Dehurmdvfiar pull, bavdusarknn kapiua «am kes Mlhkamlh mendapall mu cuku bnhawx terdapal paknan bag! Pnamm unluk barxeluw lgav ]um\zhIarsahuI dwlmuk u-um final account an m. (shah dvperseluwl plhnk-plhlk sacarl suk-rela Pmak-Dihak Irdak bo\sn manafikanny: sekarang am msnaubah persalwuan Iemehul sepem yang telah mpuluskan dalam kes Rsanvanan Ram. Krishnan a. Anny V. Vzp cm: Loong A o-s(za1s) ums 547 [11] Eeldasarkan kepada cam Ielsebut dan (erdapat pengakuan berkanannya da\am dokumen dan kelevangan an Mahkaman, telah Izrbulm bahawa lolakan kapada Aumllh Iru marsh dlbual dx dalam fmal sccnunt benankh 11 01 2015 seems ssh |7Bl Namandunukan Iolakan kapada 1umIah w dan lal-h aipersmulm olah pmik-plhak darn canpa vaksaan, maka Mankamah manaekalkan tumkan darn mmlah Iarsahm sepem mans dalam final acwunl Perkara xsrah ma di daham pengecanun Defendan me\aIu| swat hanankh 22 12 2016. [79] Eemsarxan kspada Fengnakuman da\am has No PA—22Ncvc—1s m/2022, walaupun P\amM berhak kepada jumlah dalam has PA— 22Ncvc—1s44)9/2u21 ml. namun alas persemuan pmak-plhak da\am final accmml, mmxan (unggakan uevenuan temauap Plalnm nenaaklan amuan palirasan wwajsrnya dan lalakan yang man dlbuat bag: mmlah Fznghaklman dalam Imal accuunl dalam kes No PA-22NcvoI5~ 01/2022, mkekawkan Kusimpulun [30] Ana: Imbangan kebarangkafiarl‘ Mahkamah msndapali bahavm Plamm Ie\ah benaya membukukan kes lemadap Defendan flan dengan Im memuluskan bahawa 1‘) Tunlulin F\aInM u-gu mmlah Rmaugsc In flan RM206,D12 15 aaavan dwbenarknn, namun ]umIih hmlulln W yang man amanurkan dallm ks: um 1RME74.951 10 am RM2D6‘0!2 15 yang (Blah anmak flan mperselujuw da\am mm accounl benankh 11 012019 ada\ah dlkekahcanj. am mkura senagm penohkan kepada iumlah tunggakan Ddendan kepada P\amlIi dannm kes No PA- 22Ncvc»15»m/21:22 (n) Kos sebanyak Rmznmono dlbayar oleh Devendan kepada Pluunul canaxlux Kepada alokalur. AZIZAN mm sun: Persuruhjayu akllrun Mlhkumnh nggl(3) Pullu F nang B-nuikn pad: 12 .01 21123 Klunul 5: PI nu Rarull Smgh nmuon Teluin Ranm Smgh Dmuon & Ca Na 77-A Laban Bishop 10200 Plflau Plrlang Kaunsel hagi Dolondln: Alvian Julian, Lung Mohamed NourAdam Teluan Fnaz Juhan Laval 194, Manara Mnemum man Damamela Pusan Bands! Damansata 50490 Kuala Lumpuv 1 no nu» cousmucnon comuuv arm v woo mm cnov [2015] ecu 706 2. GUAM YEIK snN. arm. V HJ. MOHD. NOOR BIN. nu. {zuoq MLJU 106 3 sEN| JAVA sun END 5. ANORV DATO‘ HJ AHMAD ununzn NJ PUTEH A AMOR [2019] 1 cu 713 4 Itsanvmnn mm: Krilhnln I. Anor v. up cnu Lnong E On (2015; 1 ms 547 5 PUNCAK ALAM nousma sDN END (FORMERLV KNOWN As BUKIT CERAKAH DEVELOPMENT sou BHD) v MENYA cousmucnou sou BHD J. ANOR [2014] 1 MLJ 257 5 CUBIC ELECTRONICS sun BHD (IN LIQUIDAYIDN) v MARS 1’ELEcouIuuNIcAnoNs SDN BHD [2019] 6 MLJ 15 7. SIM CHIC HUATV woue TED FUl[19B3]1 MLJ 151 sw 34nD1avI/uyt:5xxsq51zwA as W; Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. mm.“-y mm; mm. VII .mNa pm 7 swl CHIO HUAT VWONG TED FUI 1193311 MLJ151 a EERJAVA TIMES SQUARES sou END (FORMERLV KNOWN As EERJAVA DITAN SDN BHD) V M CONCEPT SDN BHD [2010] 1 MLJ 597 9 cualc ELECTRONICS sou BHD (IN LIOUIDATION) V MARS 'rELEcoMMuuIcATIoNs snu EHD [2019] 2 CLJ 723 sw 34nD1avI/uyt:5xxsq51zwA 3; mm Sum IHIWDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm (3) Adakah Phmlli berhmang Irepada Defendan amaunamaun sepemmina yang dmmtul oleh Dalanaan dalam Tunnnan Balls merskI7 Ann 5: din Daplun Mnnkzmah [12] Mnhklmah deflam Fenqnmman In: akan memhenknn II.Isan— allsnn kapadz sallap mu ynng talah drhumhkan plhak-plhlk (I) M-Ian persetujuan d -mm Plaimit flan Dukndln Inrurlkh 11.a1.2n19 -unu “flnnl accaunr" di mun Plninflf nan Dela:-um? [11] Separulng penmraan berdasarxan kenerangan nleh Saks: Plamm Ianu Lam cnse Wom (spay sekelan perlemuan amuax dengnn Data‘ Ir um Kak Khong(SD3|d\pe1abatnya flan pmamunauueuan bersemju unluk menyelesalkan perkari rm flan menandalanganl perakuan ‘final account" [14] SD3 pula ceran menafikzn bahawa Isrdinalnyl penemuan m amm- SP1 Pm mulinya sna m n 01 lam: namuan xersebm, namun kemudian so: mennubah ketaringannya kepada mu Le gg her umpj gm mg}; flgngan sw [15] Davam menflav ketemngan kadua—dua pmak ‘nu, Mahkamah msndapzm terdapat percangg-nan kmeningan yang «swan mbenkan uleh SP1 dan SD3 berkelman xsu penamuan im Nanmn mankaman mendapan sepanjang perbicaraan, keterangan SP1 berkanan Isu penemuan WI! aualan kansislen Dalam keadaan inn‘ mahkamah neriu merumk kapada kepada keterangan-kelevangan sum lain alau Vam-lam keterangan bebas yang ada di hadapan Mihkamah untuk merulal kedua-dua kelemngan tersebm yang manakah wenm mpevcayal aan balsh auenma [15] Da\am menemukan mdmnm saksl-saky lersehut‘ Mahkamah um man merumk kepadl kelarangan saksw Defendan Iallu sopma Tin (SD!) berkanan dengln pensmuan pads 11u92u1e Iersebm SP2 dalnm keterangannyi menyllakan hahawa helnaulldak menghadm perjumpaan amara Pmmw dengan sm telagl mak menaman bahawa nada firumgaan an amara Plgmm darn sna. Da\am keadun ml, mahkamah mandapnm bahawa kelevangan PJnInnlbahawI lamapalnya pequmpaan pads 11 D1 2019 d! pejibal SD3 BGIVIVI Iebvh dlpelclyal barbandlng penafian samatl-mall och sus unam. Tnmlzahan pula peflemuan nu bngi memblncangkln pembaylran pmgak levsebul Kmnngan sun In: dlkunkln lag: dangnn pangasahnrl men 502 hahnwi lerdapll 2 kepmg wk berllnkh 11 D1 2019 bemllii RMIDQDGD din RM 1§D‘DOO yang Ialnh dvmasukkan ka dllam Ikaun Plmrml pad: malam han ylng samu haul diripida pemneangan pm ham yang um: [I7] Dalam mas: yang sama soa ]uga menegaskan banana Wang RM550,000 wng amenkan kepada spa aaalan sehagaw advance payment untuk gap pekena kepada F\ainui yang mengalamw Kesempltan kewangan Dada kelvkz Ifu Namurl keterangan mi ma lndak dwsukonq oksh mama-mane kelerangan dokumemav lm’ mama-dl lehm panh wag. apabfli keterangan danpada Plamm hsrsena huklw berlulws bahawa Kurllrlk Oersebul xevan selesan segenuhnya Eu: mos zme Vagi memngan bahiwa vinya admah umuk advent payment bigl mamhayar gap pekena adalah mragw kerana pembayaran yang dukalakan ntu beflaku dalam tahun 2019, rumu se\ang masa 3 Oahun selepas proyek dlswapkan my Ketarangan Am msokang alen keterangan accaunl benankh 11 012019 Namurn Dadendln mampemkankan account |ersebul can menyalakan bahawa wanya adalah updated pro/eel account sahajn dan bukannya l/na/ account Mahkamah ml mehhal kepada dakumsn lemebul aan admah ]e|n: bahawa .a adalah am account kemna lelah ullandalanglnl aleh konsuhan dun kesemua pmax lerlnbat [171 Mankamah mendipali bahaw: akaun cersemn sebagau mm accauntadalah munasablh berhandmq dengan kelerangnn spa bahaw: wanya adawl Pmjecr Account Eerdasarkan ketemngan xenaenut. udak tevdapal langsung eaman bahavm ianya adalah Pm/sc!AL1:aunr Tuada langsung jugs calatan bahawi ianya auaxar. belswlalsemeniara alau Iwdak dwmuktamadkan Terdapal yuga kelerangan bahawa plojek Iersebul belah swap da\am mm 2016 manakala penyedlasn finalacoouv W Ielah amuat selepas mu Mahkamah mendapalv bahaw: sccaunlherlankh 11 01 2019 ada\ah final accwnr yang le\an mpersetujul cleh pihak-pwhak dan bukannya salu Prtysclllncounl Sekvranya wa mempaknn Project Amount bagl syarikal Defendan, mengapa perlu dilandsnangam olen P\amM bag: pengesammyav Tmdakan pihak-pmak mensndalanganlnya adalah Mas .a merupakan final account prqek Iersabul yang telah mpersemnn, Iambahan pure tevdap_aI mlakan unmk mguranggn bayaran Q ek yang digersetu ui nleh Plamm. [201 Hujahan Defendan melalui keterangnn Sm bzhawa account befllrlkh 11 I 2019 bukln fiI!B/ account |Pen:ku:n muklamad) tatapi hanyalflh Pnyeci Account yang dxkemlskml pads 11 12019 adalah bementangan dangnn dokumen Cenebul Mahknmah Hulk menenrna kstemngan din htulhin Defender: bnhawa Ianyi makah Pm1sv:fAL'c11un! IVII kevana account larsehnt Huh mamenuhi sysn-at til bawah Klaus: 58- 59 Komrak tersebul Fmzal account telah dvkeluarkan flan disahkln aleh pmak Jumtelz |Konsu|tan Frojek) flan dvpersetujui nlan pihak-puhak nan: sebarang keleringan bahawa pmak Defendan lalah membantah kapada pengeluaran sun Perakuan Slap (cenmcaxa M Cnmplellon and Cnmphanoel ccc; Ievsebut kepada Konsunan Maka Plhak nevendan Udak lag: boleh mempemkalkan kandungan ccc Oersebut dan jugs Jumlah yang penu mhayar dlbawah ccc lersebm kepada Plalnnl Dlpenumnknn socaunl benarikh 19 cc 2019 sepem beriku| ...m‘. . " . J. .-«was av sm 34n0wWlJyb5x>vsq5AzwA 9 «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! ‘ ‘unfit A ...m...m .. R‘ sm :wu0wWUyb5xxsq5AzwA m «M. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-930-12/2019

PLAINTIF KHEW CHEE SUN DEFENDAN 1. ) BEST TILE MARKETING SDN. BHD. 2. ) TERRACOTTA TILES CENTRE SDN. BHD. 3. ) POH SOON TERNG

[1] “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt”. The Latin phrase simply means that the law will not help those who sleep on their rights. To put it another way, every person must be aware of their own legal interests at all times, or else the law might be reluctant to assist anyone who does not take vigilant measures to protect their legal rights.[2] The plaintiff's action for breach of contract revolves around the issue of royalty payments alleged to be due to him for the sale of imported tiles from Belgium spanning 23 years before this action was brought.[3] On 16.6.1995, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the Royalty Agreement. The plaintiff claims that under the Royalty Agreement, he was an exclusive agent for imported tiles manufactured by a Belgian company named ATAB NV. Based on the Royalty Agreement, the defendant appears to have exclusive rights to import the tiles for sale in the Malaysian market.[4] Due to the defendant's alleged failure to pay the plaintiff the remaining royalty payments, the plaintiff filed this breach of contract claim against the defendant. The plaintiff further claims that as a result of his loss, the defendant has been unjustly enriched, thereby depriving him of his legitimate expectation of royalty payments. The defendant, on the other hand, claims that its company has been dormant since 2005. The defendant further denies that the plaintiff was ATAB NV's exclusive agent.[5] Firstly, the court finds that the plaintiff has been the exclusive agent for ATAB NV based on the evidence that was presented at trial.[6] In regard to this issue of dormancy, the court agrees with the defendant's arguments, supported by the relevant financial documentation which seems sufficient to the court, that the defendant did not engage in active business activities between 2005 and 2018. As evidence of this, the defendant has produced complete sets of Reports and Accounts from 1997 to 2005, followed by Financial Statements from 2001 to 2016 and then Directors' Reports and Audited Financial Statements from 2017 to 2019.[7] On the question of the plaintiff’s entitlement to royalty payments for the period between 16.6.1995 and 2005, that is, the period before the defendant became dormant, the court takes cognisance of the fact that under Section 245(3) of the Companies Act 2016, companies are only required to retain records for seven years after the completion of the transactions or operations to which the entries relate. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot now come to court and demand the defendant to produce such documents spanning over 20 years ago. The court further finds that the plaintiff himself seems to be sleeping on his rights, thus is not entitled to his claim.

12/01/2024

YA Dato' Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=900244f8-cb7e-45a7-84d0-f050f7ed0f57&Inline=true

12/01/2024 18:22:58 WA-22NCvC-930-12/2019 Kand. 137 S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N EQCkH7Lp0WE0PBQ90PVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—22Ncvc—93c—12/2019 Kand. 137 Inn I an; A 12/01/2014 19:24-52 IN THE HIGH EQ1[RT or MALAYA AT KUALA LUIIIPIJR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORV MALAYSIA CIVIL suIT NQ.: wA-22Ncvc.9;g.I 2/2019 BETWEEN KHEw cNEE sun (NRIc No.: u1oos—ne-s92aI1aa5511) . PLAINTIFF AND BEST TILE MARKETING SDN. END (company N . 303336-P) DEFENDANT §RgIJNDs OF Jgfimgul Pnlimlnary I1) ‘V/gflam‘IbI1s non do:mIenIIIms nus subvenml-IF The Lzlm pnrase s-mpIy means InaI Ihe Iaw wm non neIp (hose whu sIeep an lhenr ngnIs To pu| II Inothev way. every person mus! be aware omen awn IegaI Inleresls at all lrmea. av eIsa the law nugm be reluctant In assIsI anyone who does not take vIgIlaI1I measures In males! Ineu Iegel Hgms [21 As we case before me demonstrates‘ Ine pramurrs amen lur bveach av contract remwes around me 155M! :2! rnyally payments aflegad to syn Eucnunwwznvamawvw -we Sum ...m.. M“ be HSQG m mm we nIVfl\ruH|Y mm; dun-mm VI] JILING Wm [3] [4] 15] Pmzmsa be due 11: mm In! 1he sale o1 Imported mes lvom selgmm spanning 23 years more nus actmn was hroughl Originally‘ we amen was men by me Naxmxll aguIns( wee ae1enuun1s, nemexy Eesl We Mlrkmmg sun Bhd rm: wenaenn"), Tenacona ‘filee Cenlve Sdn Ehd ("Terracotta N95“) and Poh Soon Terng mwv) Howavev‘ Turacotta Tues and Dwvs etnkmg ou| apphcallons were new allowed by my Immedmle predacesscv on 4 a 21:20 On 15 a 2021, me cmm a1 Appeex amrmed Ihese ueclsxons Thereiore‘ nmy a case agamsl me aevenaann remem Aocovumgw, me plammf seeks me lolluwmg (a) An nrdevlonhe uevenaam In prvduoe and deHve1lolhe plamufl the auaneu smemanl nl account‘ management accounts‘ recenpxs, vouchers, sales Invoices‘ aelwery oraers‘ sales ordain anu purthue orders 1mm 25 5 1991; un|II 12 12 2019 bsmg Ihe date when we action wus filed‘ 1») Thai 5% M the deiandanfs nel sa\es from 2551995 unm 12 12 2019 be aeemea as myany, 11:) A declavaflon man an emoum equwalenx In me 5% myauy be deemed as In: sum o1 myany payments em Euu.H7LpnwEnPaqmPvw mm. 5.11.1 ...n.mn .. .1... m my 1... mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII nF\uNG we I371 [351 [39] [45] Page 11 nl33 The detendanc, on me orner rr-nd, counters py aaeemng mar the burden mpmov has on me plarnmnp pmve me devendanrs husvness transaclmns wrrn ATAB NV‘ wrrrcrr allegedly spanned mam IS 51995 to 12 12 2019 TN: nae not been pvoven py me p1aIn|fll, as me udendanl puu u Tne defendant Iurlher slrenglhens cnerr poamen by aseemng that me p4arnnr1‘s auegar-an cannon be uue because ocnlempcranenus ducumems snow that me defendant has neen dormant since 2005 Tney Mam! me: man case Is further eorrdpomred Dy me luctlnil me defendant reported zem revenue smce 2005 as revealed rn their audued accounts produced dunng ma mar \n this regard‘ lhe delendanl Iehes on me evrdence oi PW1‘ an audnar wnness subpoenaed by me plarmm, who allegedly lesuned that accuunung recuvds are nor kep1 peyond 7 years and lhal a dormam company means a company mn no rauenue \ have caremny exarnrned me plaumflfs pnsmflll on ms rssue av dormancy In the puarnmrs new, since no contemporaneous documents were produced to subseanuane the detendanrs pusmonr rna plamuu dams that me derendanr was nm a dormant company Addmonallyr me word -darrnann was nor lound on any company doeumemanon presented al mal‘ such as nnancrax scanemems or audned accounts our the re\evam years‘ «or msranee, wruon coma nave supponed me devendanrs dam: In regard to this Issue 04 dormancy. \ agree mm me derendanrs argumens, supported by me relevani nnancrax dncumemauon wrucrr seems sumersnt rd ma, mat me devendanr dtd nm engage In active srn Euu.H7LpnwEnPanwPvw «um. sum n-nhnrwm be u... m yaw r... pnmnmy mm: dun-mm y.. muue pm pm 12 In a; huslness zrzllvlllsi belween mas and 2013 Tikmg IMO cnnsmerahcn bath the p\iInnf1'xs general asaemons and me aevenaznrs nnan I documans I have eI hand, I am Incnned In behave me defendanfs dascnpnon M as comp-ny In whalevev Ionn It may lake whmn Is cbwouily backed up by (he deIenuem‘s nnenmal scaxemencs [41] As ewdenos ov mun me defendant nee pruduced cnmplale sets eI Reports and Aecaurns ham 1997 I0 2005, luHnwed by Flninclal sIaIemenIs Imm mm in me and men DIIedurs' Repone and Audned I=InnnaIaI saanenuenxe «mm 2017 In 2015 [421 PW1 mane: IesIIIIe¢ «nan sales equaI revenue, and II leverme I5 zero me dalsndinl Is uonnam In accaunllng terms A lack av revenue, he exweunea, means a lack eI operanene wIIrI me earner financiul s(aIemmts17IaI hava been pmsemad Ior my mnsIaeraIIan, I do not have any duums about PWVs IeeIInIony. especlafly smce mm win no other mmess who coma expmn anylhlng eonuary ta Ins Iemmony, and Ihalact that ne was also saved In IeszIIy an nenew :71 me uIaInIIrI [J3] Thsvelme, sIrIl1€(l‘|B7B were no revenues nuween zoos and 2015‘ there could have been no lvansalmnns belwaen Ina dalendanl and ATAB NV‘ olherwuw may wanna have been Ieuecnea In those financml aoaxernencs My IInaIngs are lullhev remlowed by Ina Inst man Ine pIaInII« oflers nu evidence In vevuxe Ine aeIenaanre posmon In lac!‘ Ine pIaInm, durmg cI‘ossexamIrIalIon. appem to agree max Ine dnrmincy penod lasted unlll 2019 Theveiore, regarmess of whatevar wmIImn me deflenuanl med, mere I5 nonnng belore Ine IN Euu.H7LpnwEnPanm7vw mm. s.n.I nmhnrwm be II... M my I... nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII nFIuNG MI [44] [45] [M5] vauxsmas noun lrral has me delendzrll und ATAB NV logelrrer aurrng me perlod In quesllarr As in wrrerr praclsely ma aelerrnanl became aorrrrarrl, xlre aelandant argues that elrrrougrr lrre pelenee suggesleu mar lrrey became durman| In 2015 ll was a Iypogruphlcal error or mlslnke on me uelerraarrl-s pan smpe ll should have amen W zoos Taklng Issue wllh me aelenaarrrs allegau mrslake, me plalrrrlll argues rrral lrre aeaerraanre alleged errbr rs lrrconsrslenl belween me cause papers rrlea lrr mun and lrre oral lestlmony al DW1 regardlrlg |he aelerraarrrs actual dafmancy perroa, whlch makes ms lesllmony urrrellable srrrce n rs rrpr creelrwonrry and cannot be lrusrea In addlllon. no documenlary evidence has been produced lb prwe lrral lrre uelerraanr has Indeed balxmle aormanl Acmvdlng lo lrre plamrm. aaoumenlary evrderrae I! cmclal Furthermore, me plamlrll argues lhat lre would not harm knowledge cl all me sales And lransac|lons between me delendam and ATAE NV slnae they are wllh me deflerldanll wnlur carrrror be verllled by me plelnml wllhoul mam belng produced the lssues olwnemev a witness's oral (esllmony aepanea lrbrrr lrral pl rrls pleaded case and lrrepcurra recepmvltylc pcnlllrmrrg emenpe wela also dealt mm by Abdul Mallk lshak J (as His Lordshlp men wasr lrr Abaul Ranmen Em Abdul Karlm v ADdl1/ wanab Bln Abdul Ha/md[1996]4 MLJ 523 As r-us Lbrearrrp pbaen-ea at p 530 am Euuuvlpnwznvaqmww «war. s.n.l nmlhnrwlll r. u... m my r... bflnlrraflly mm. dnuuvlnnl VII aFluNG vtmxl W u was n 45 nnw mks law mac when a pany m glvmg hrs oral emsnca .n noun dwatas (mm m plszded defence. man ms Account as narrated in «ne cuurl must surely be suspea (see FR PM/cksr v chwaa May Kwang & Anol [(952] MLJ me) The wmpanance ov pbadmgs can never be overstated Lovd Edmund Dams wn Fannl V Secrafary ur Shale Ior oarsncenssol 1 An ER 166": cugonl terms made xnese obrsewilvony n has become vasmananle In these aays Cc auach deueasvvg mlpunanoe m meadmgs‘ an: n Is beyund dnuhl mat mere have been nmas when an mslsteme on camprene mmpuanae wvlh men Iechnmalmes pul wsnae at nsk, am, mesa, may on mxasmn have led to us being aeveaum am pleadmgs commue Io play an essermal pan .n awl nclwcna‘ and among»: mam nas been smoe me cm: Procedure Acl was a Mac paws: (0 permu nmandmams cmzumslances may am: when we mam ::V permlssmn wnmd wnrk umumce on II \aas|. necesswale In adpoummenl wmcn may prove uannuflarly umonunane m malt win a [my Ta shrug an .- crmusm as ‘a mere pleading paunr u xmeaore bad waw and had urzcnce For me pnrnan, purpuse Dlmeadings remains. arm n can gm: wave anneal unponanu That purpuse \s m define me Issues and (hereby In mfnrm the pames In advance at me case they have In meel am: so ename them to take steps no dean wan n sm Euumnpnwznvaqmwvw mm. s.n.‘ n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: flan-mm VII mum pm me 15 ul ;s [471 As Io how a noun ougm to deal mm conmcung ewuance prasemed by a wnness Thomson CJ m Knoon Chye Hm V PP[1961] 1 ML.) 105 clanlled mus wssue m the lollowmg munner an pp me A 101 Uniortunalely «mm me palm n( vlaw M me defence on one or Mu pmnxs me slmy mm by m appellant and mm mm mus hmmev mu nul wmcwde Mureaver an a| ‘east on: pomn, regavdmg the ownevsmp cl ma nels mu wave bemg mended. Ihe hromer m crass- enmmmon con|vamclefl ms awn evmence Vn chm! As regards me dlsuapancvee belween me Mn wwnesses‘ me man Judge dud nul apparenny nonwev mesa to be or very great nnpanance Aslegaldsihe eonlradnctians In me nnuners evidence‘ however, he deal! wvlh me manner as loHows . ‘I must huwever .n mnno¢1Ion wllh the hrcrlhefs evldenca palm out Io you man w a wnness makes mnnmmcmry sv.a|eman(s ellher m one Im M evmence or on ma separ-1|: occasions on mailers upon wncn hm nesunmny Is hzhle |L7 cuntradncmn men ms credn ws wmpeached and me mole cl hrs ewdelloe must be ve]ecled There can be no dnubl mm an a| weasx Mo ucusm: that wllness mu oanvadbcl mnweu W. eennemen, you eonwev max may were two dehbuak! canxraamuons, man you ve;e¢1 me vmme of lhe evxdenoe ol ma: wanes: on me amev hand, .¢ you "link ne was nervmls and made a gamma mvslake‘ man his cream snll svands n u enmexy a manner my yen: and pus you back as u see me pasmon to me oflgmal pmyusluun I pm to ynu m connection mm wllnesses was he Iawng me xnun on an n. by nu wnhaducuon cs(IhHsh=d mnuew as a um If u be ma mum men rm ewdence mus| m Vzw be ve;aI:|ed “ sm Euumnwwznwaqmwvw mm. smnw ...n.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: mmn wa mum pm pm 15 an; \n aur vluw mm x: wrong and calcumed lo nnsneaa a wry n : wlluui demonstrably (ilk has on nne or me pmnls men m nu clear man he a not a mhzhle wllneu and u a m-newt Dmdencelhe vest om: evidence must be Icnnimsed wnn great care and mean wrm susmuen To say‘ lmwevel. Ina! becinse a wnness has nun proved a har on one at Mo pomls than me wmfle ol nus awaenca "must m law be maxed‘ Is «:2 go we var and vs wrung [46] Taking «ms Issue lurlher, some general omewauons may be made about the Feaeur cams decxsrun m Tmdok Basal Esme sun em: v Tm/W Co [1979] 2 ML! 229 that m\gm pmvlde usem gumance coneermng me present case Aunrdlng lo Lee Hun Hoe ca [Borneo] me oral evvdenoe at a wnness shomd be wevghed agalnsk omer contemporaneous ewdenoe and ms cvcumslanoes surmundlng me case As ms Lmdshwp obsewed at p 234 ueuennexess we learned max ludge expressed mrusen to be completely sausneu mm me verzcwy nnne vesponaenrs mmesses and mewr avsdence Ne purpmed lo came In oenaln «mung; cl ran on me oval ememe but um um whee or consider ma\ me vespnndenrl oval mama apuenly clashed mm as oonlempuranauus documanmy evidence Far myseu, I would wnh vasDflI:| lee! samawnzl saier In Mar to and my on um um: and am. am witness vmmh am camamporaruemn wuln me even! and to draw (he reamnalfla Inlecencu «om mam man xn believe nu subsequem vecofleclmn or mm. of u. pamcmany .1 he \s a wwness wmn a Wvvuse olms own to am: and u m and no| accaunl larme scacemenzs m ms documents and wnlmg: Judwclal reoeplnn ui ewdenoe reqmres man me man evvdence he umcauy lashed sm zummpnwznnaumm mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my n. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Page was agamsl me was of me emu emaence and me aIcums|um:es cl me can Prausm ly shauld never be mmaken lm warmly n my be aflvanhgeoul at mu mg. m rac:H me woms :7! Lara Greene M a. in vuru v YmH|1B45[ F’ 153! pages 19-20 -we were vemmaed ol cenern wemmown observalmns In Ihe House o1Lon1s mung wnn me pnsmun ol an appeuaxe mun wnen me mgrnena anne ma: N69: has been based In male or rn parlmms uplmun ullhe flemeannuv euwnnessee u can, 51 course, only be on me man amasmns. and In circumstances where we appeflala mun Vs mrwmced by me plamosl mnsmuuam. mar u would be lulhfisd wn finding mam-amen wage had lovmed nwmng onmmn aux men me mun rs so mrmnoed n .e, In my opnman. ermlted and mdeed bound lo we eflecl m ils cnnvlcmm n has never been laid dawn by me House cl Loms (ha! in appallma court has run pcwev to fike «ms course Pmins judges womd be me last person: no Vay dam In mizwtxlwly even m assessmg me demeammr nlz wmess The mas| expenencea judge may‘ a\he|| rarely‘ he deceived by a clever Mar. av led m Iavm an unlavourabie amnmn clan hnnesl wnness, and may express nn. mew mm nu. demeancul was excellent or an as me one may he Mos! expenznoed oounsen can, I have no douhl‘ recau at Ieas| one case when this has hlppened In their xnowaeage n my lurlhev poml out mat zn Irnplesskm as in ma demeanouv m : wanes. ought nu: to be Adopted by a ma! nmae wI(hou|1aa\mg vugawnil me vmme 0! me enuenee of me wnnsss m quesnon Iv M can be demwI|m|ad m oovmclmn mm a wnness wnese demaznmu has been pvaised by me lnal wage has on some eallalvm nraner dehberately qwen an unnue enswen me favaurame view srn zummpnwzneeemm “Nair s.nn n-nhnrwm rs. med w my r... nrwhrnflly mm: dun-mm vu mune vmm P33: 1! 1:! 33 formed by me judge as m ms demunour musl neeesunly Iota Its value " [49] As a resuu of rewewmg xnese aulhcrmesy 1 can pemaps conclude that If awunessnemrnany oanuedms ms awn pleaded case or. lur lha| rnaner, ms eemer tesllmnny that does nut rnean (ha! ms enlvre testimony must be Iejeued uulrlght Vn ems scenano the mun musc caretuuy sna\yse me extent cf the cunnnx m such eesnrnuny m order to aenemnne whelherlhe wmness rs lying mmugh msleelh or N other circumstances coma have a\so eontnbuled tn such Inconsistency or dvscvepancy such as a rmszaxe lorgetlulness or nervousnss II a wnness Ires lhroughuul ms (eslmmny me ermre evidence he provides shouhi be rejecred However. ya we appears in have nea an one or Me uocasmns then ms creammry wm be vmpalred As a result me court mus1 scrulmnse ms uIher(es1rmany wrm a great deal :71 caunan and suspvcron xakung Irrlo account the amer surroundmg cncurnsxanoes thatwuld supmemem thlslesumony m ordertc venry and ascertain Its Iruxhlmness and aeoep1amIny Lukemse, .1 a mmess appears to be forgetfm or nervous‘ or mere exisl mrslakes an we pan lha| could have been recmea sImp\y by wdennfymg or reqemng to other contemporaneous emenee me: sunvnns the acme! uorred paslhun, «ms eymenoe can then be eaken mic cormderatwon However. I musi hasten to add that this does not m any way undermine me Imponance cl pleadings and men‘ fundamentalism In pmvldmg a bolus! narrative and me paslllun taken by s Imgant Hence, whatever me case may be and m supplementing «ms paslhnn. there should be run reams! aepanure srn Euumnwwznwaqmwvw we snrm n-nhnrwm be used m mm me nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] nF\uNG pm [501 [5‘] Pa|e1!I3033 tnant tne pleldsd case auecttng a party's atanee tn a vttnuantental way Apptytng the above annlogy tn the otestent sttttatton, I «me that annottgtt tne«e ta an tnoonatstettt Van ntaae tn the aetenw tnat ntenttons tne year zms as me starl date 0! me company‘s aomtancy, wmch was sate to be a typogvapntoal enor on me uetanaanrs pan. ano aesptte tne raet that generally an amendment IS reattttea, I sttnpvy cannot tgnore |he lad that me aoeutnenta plcvldefl during tne Ulal anottteo mat tne company nas nol had any revenue smce zoos, wntcn wtnotnea wttn DW1‘s teetttnony, suggests mat the actuat date ts 2005‘ net zots Tnts ts sontetntng tnat was discoverable only durmg etosaexatntnattott Mulem/er‘ I beHeve mat tne oevenoant dld not eanoeal any lads tetatee to tnts tnattat I| tentatns clear tnat tnote ts onty a atscrepancy tn tne yeav, and none tn any omer The oetenuanrs otnet deflenoe rentatns ttnanangeo As a nutter ot tact, tt ts otutctttt lav me to see wnat ptetttutae the pnatntm stnvets stnoe DW1 was extenstyety moss- exanttnea by me ptatntttra Dmmsel on mts oomtant tsstte On the basis of me above findings, I find that sermon Him) 01 me Evtdenoe Ad V950 Cannm be Invoked to draw any adverse mlerenoe lar tne oevenoanrs tattttte lo pmtttoa tne so-called teqttttea data and sates Itgtttea an Euutunptiwznvanwvvw «mt. Sam 1-nhnrwm be t... M yaw t... nrmnaflly MW: dnunmnl VII .nttne Wm! Daft m was Whether ms p/amnll rs anurlsd for on of me royalty payments /mm me accrued dare aI25 5 1995 lo 12 12 um [52] ms vssue wm also mmpiement the one above [531 soeemoauy, the Issue a| hand Is wnemer an royalty payments shcumd be Dam in the D\§H1|lW (mm the accrued date of 2551996 10 12.12 2019 [54] Aocorarng In my findmgs In me prevxcus xssue‘ smoe mere were no revenues from zoos mvcugh 2015 there eouuo have been no lransanwns between the delendant and ATAB NV As such, \he period vronn 2005 to zoca Is Irre\evant and or no consequence [551 AgaIns1 «ms background n lurther appears that mere \s \n excsfence an essermm pweoe of marrnamcn that mrgm shed some hghl on this Issue The details abom lhls mlnrmanon have been confirmed by mo NV m thew letter dated 20 1 2020 Acoovdmg to IKD NV wno nas no mterest In «ms maner, lhe oevenoam or Terraoona mes have not mnduclefl any sa\es wum lhem «or me pennd spanmng (mm 2020 and gumg baokwards rorme past seven years Bsermally‘ ems means that me plammfs claxm (or royauy oayrnems 7ur2D13 102020 us nal olarrname srnoe there were no sales vansacuons ounng (ms ume pencd Let me pause nerevor a moment to exmam what led \‘n the vssuanee at Mo ws Iener dated 201 2020 Fonowmg me plarnms sun DW1 emailed IKO NV tn request some mlormanon regavdmg sa\es syn Euurunwwznvaqmwvw -one sans! n-nhnrwm re used m mm ms nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm wants; ta) General aerneges, exemplary aemegee at RM1D0.00D no‘ punmve damages ulRM10DlO00 our aggravated aernegee of RM100‘DO0 oar Interest and caste Or elternattwely. [ej The delendanl pays speael aamages ollwz 122,500 on belng the acctrrnulelea rayelty peymente lrorn 25 5 1995 tnml l2 l2 2019 as well er. general damages. exemplary damages of RMIOCLOUO our pumtwe damages of RMtoa,ono our aggravated damages el RMlao.ooo oo, tnlerest and costs [5] In epne or the Incl that the amt agamsl nwt wee struck out, he nenetneless pmeeeaeu wtlh ms counterclelrn tor Rmssmu no An overview or the races of me use [7] On 1661993, the nlslnllfl‘ aha the delendant entered lrrto an agreement ("the Royalty Agreement") [8] The aelendanrs dlreuovl DW1l sbgrled the Royalty Agreement en rte behalf [9] ‘me plalmlfl clarrns mat under the Royalty Agreement, he was en excluslve agent lur lmponed trlee manufntxurad by e aelglan cnmpany named ATAB NV en zemmwwznwaemm “Nair s.n.l ...n.mn .. .r... m my t... nflmhallly MIMI m.n.n VII aFluNG mm [511 vuznaln cranmuons between ATAE NV and ma delendam Aocovdbng to me email‘ uw1 rnvmrnea mo NV mat between was and moo, ma uavenaam purchased a walewepellznt membrane hem ATAE NV, known as Pprx Therevore. In order to delenu «ms amen. DWI requested sales data mlormauon m prvve me: me defendant nun not numnaeed PcI'X tram ATAE mm): mm ms prommsd IKO NV lo respond In sum 3 way Vn nnalysmg this Issue. nal anly have I rahsd on me ernnrls excnungea between mo NV and law: belween 1212025 and 21 1 znzu but u have aw: taken note at me vacn man me quesflons and answerscnnducted dunng me cmss—examIna|Iun av own by me puammre counsel appear lo have reveaxea that me plarmm has a\su admnled to me enslenoe pt mese ernaus exchanged when acoepung man some busmess Uansacllons look place up In 2000 between me dzlendant and ATAB NV These are me relevant notes at proceedings mmcanng me same RK Okay Based on me agreement srgnea by me names at page 24 Bundle A, hundle a‘ sorry, elngm wmoh Is aated 16-6, 1995 The agrsemem, the omy agreement Alnghn m max agreernenx, ma nut mermun any specllu; pvnduds sucrr as PaI'X‘ carvecf’ am Instead rt mermaned branded praduns manulucluved py ATAB Agreed’: psr Agreed, agreed am srn zummpnwznwanmm “Nana snrm nnnhnrwm n. med m my r... mn.u-y mm: flan-mm wa mum v-mm wmm RK Okay SW al paga sea, alvlgmy I am now Inoklng at 1‘ 2‘ 3‘ 4, 5, paragraph 6 usually Ale you Wllh ma M1 Pam same page 56: pavagvaph s lrom ma lop okay You aclually slaled hare wnlorlunalaly, ourselves also havlng mlsslng pan: on our pan Eulwhalever aala we nave shnws very low Nlnsacllan wnn your company “ ms IS Musk you wrote lo ATAE PST ves lwmle Rx Okay Sn based on wna| you wroxe, email (a Any, I put I| to you lhal mere was lnueed (ransaclmx based on what you wrote PST Veah, lnrough my memuryy mere oalmnaly IS some vansacmn I 90! lo agree wlln you RK ves, yes yes Ana also (Nough some oala, nghI7 PST I'm nut sule aooul ma ants. because wnal mosl ol ll‘ men we are wnllng me emall we've oaslcally wan Ialklng about you know‘ mlormal-on RK aul lms ls based on wnal you wmle PST Yeah RK am whalevel oaxa we have shows very low sales uansacuon mm youv oompany Alngm so nw my am Euuuvlpnwznvaqmww “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. HIGH M mm he mm-y mm: dnuuvlnnl y.. mayo vtmxl PST RK PST RK PST RK PST RK 93:: n M n quesuan we, you have eemauy rehed on some available data m reecmng in mm to the findings bevme yau Icluafly wme to ATAB, based on wha| yau wrote am as I sawd, I recalled 1! mainly Is lhvough me memory we not some: Dhyswcal ma Ina! we have Because we do‘ when we do vemember 20 years ago‘ wneme: I do was: some nrder for mls producl Amgm, alnghl oxay Sa [here ws data‘ ngm No No data’ No, no, because we are lrymg la search n later on‘ but we and not mm as reqmred by me cmm Okay Amgm Now, me reuowmg sentence, okay “We have sa\es ngures, ngures ad 1997, 1993 and 1999 - so you have sales figures ‘We behave we have mwsslng figures (at year 1995 and maybe year 2000“ so was was Indeed sa\es «gures. "gm? sm Euumnwwznvaqmwvw mm. em ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-mm v... u .4 33 PST No‘ as I mated. there were no memeuy snhd sulos figures we wsl vouna eome genem saies figures se wnen 1 wm\e this amen, n was very eavly stage RK Okay so whereIsmzIgeneIaH\gum7 PST General figures does no! mmcete any pamcmar product‘ mil general sales product So you can lmd (hem msnde me auuuee Accounts and all these znmgs Thase are me genera! sales RK can you Show :1 lo us° PST In aheady m me euanen icmunl so I'm not sure wmcn narlmular one Because my am! we thought we gut some data‘ but we Found that rm, muse are not me actual one we wanted mm \s rerened la meee s-lee [53] Funhennme n IS pemnent to male that me nansacnans confirmed by such emens also aocurred below 2005, when the defendant rumea dormant Tm strengmened me aevemenre pcsmon on one company‘: so-called dormancy‘ slahng men mere were na revenues uunng max perm-1, belweln zoos and 2c1e [591 on me queshon er me plemurrs enzmemem In royeny peymems Vov me penod between 15 51995 Ind zoos. me: Is‘ me penud bofare me aemeenx became uunnenx, I no |ake mgnlsance 4:! me lIc1 that under Semen 245(3) ev me campemes Act 2016, compames ave omy required co mam vecords lor seven years aner me m Euu.H7LpnwEnPaqmvvw «me Snr1n\nuuhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 m may he nrW\nnU|Y mm: dnuumnl VII mune v-ms! Page 15 ms: campbmon of me Uansacvans or opeunane to which me ennnes rerauu For comwelenessy secllon 245 at me Cumpames An 2016 pray-use themllrmvrtg prams-one 245 Acuounls |a be kep| (U {a} 1:2) (2) (3! A company‘ me mredols mu managers 0! a company snau se «a be kep| me zucourmng and owner raowdl m sumaemvy explzm me transacllans and financial posmun ov me company arm enable lrue and fair pram and loss zocmm|s ana halanoe sheets and any documents reqmred |o be auacned lluzvelu in be preparzdy and cause me nocaunhng ana ulnar vecnms m by kept m a manner 11 to enanle ma aacoummg and owner mooms |a be wnvemermy and nmpefly audited A company, me duectms and managers cc 3 company snau cause apprnpnate emnes tn he made \n ma accounting and tamer veccrds wllhm smy asys ol me cumplelmn ol me lvansacums to which me enmes relate The cnmvany snau reum me recovds recenea In In subsecnon m lor seven years ane« me cmnplenon av me wansacnens or aperamns |o wmch me entries reme any Euumnwwznwaqmvvw “Nana smm n-nhnrwm be LAIQ4 m may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm 1‘? (5) (5) (1: mgziavaa The mam vefanld to m sunmx-on (w ; shall be kapl an we mg-nma com at me cumpany or an such olhav place as the sweater; mink m and mu :1 an mm be wan var mpocmon by me mreclon Nulwmhsiandlng subsectlan (4), me accounting and nine! vemms m operannns mnslde Mawaym may be kept by Ihe company at 2 place outside Malaysia pravlfled man such acmxmhng and nuns: veomds shall be senl In am kapl at a place m Malaysia and be made avauama la! mspeclmn by me mreclms an au limes me aacuummg and olnev vemvds revecm: to m subsectmn 45) man Include such statements and velums wnlh vzspeox to me busunasu dean mm \n the records so kept as m enable Me pvepzvzuon aim: and vamnancm Ilalemarlls and any documents Iequrvad |o be attached In me financxal ila|eman(i it any aecoummg and ufller vecnrds ave kepl an a place oumde Mamysxa under subsection M) or <5)‘ ma Regwslrar may requvre me company to produce those record: an a place m Malayswa or amenmne me type and manner av me recums m be kepl m Malaysia. sm Euumnpnwznvaqmwvw ma. ma n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [60] [51] see. 17 n! 1; (9) The noun nuy, -n any pzm::u\nr case. ovder mar Ina zeoounung and olher raeords ov z comuany he well In mspachon by an apnroved odmnuny audnor Ichng ha a dvreclur sub1ec| k: a wnlien undenikwg nwen re the Gram maunvormanon acouned nyme zummvdurmg nrs mipecnnn snau run he drscloseo by mm excepHwlhaln1|rec|ur my me company and every omoer wm: cwmravene (ms seerron wmmfl an owenoe ano anan on wnvlclmn. he Mame lo a fine not exoeedmg five hundred ltlauiand rmqgn or In \mpnsonmen| «or a nenn nnl exceedmg (Nee yean or re mm in ms regard, FW1 as an expenenced audncn confirmed wdnovt nesrnauon that a company does not Keep aceovnung records beyond seven years In ngm onnrs oosmon, even fllhe plarnnn appears tn be aclmg wmun the nmeune, he mo not demonstrate any sennusnesslo enlorce ms ngncs, essenI\aHy sleepmg an mam Therefore, havmg secnan 245(3) oi me conrpanres AC1 2016 m my mmd, the pxarnm cannot now come no man and oernano me delendant lo produoe such oocunrenrs spanmng over 20 years ago In mnsequence \ am oenarnuy not w a oosmon to declare rne pnarnnrrs rIgh| ro nave an order var me detanoarn ta produce and delrvei to me pnamnn me auaned slalemenl ov accounts, management aeaourns reeerpns, vouchers, sa\es myoroes, dewery orders. sales moers and purchase orders between 25 51995 and 12 12 2019 \n lwgm 01 my syn zammpnvvaoeaamwv. «me s.n.r n-nhnrwm re used m yaw ms nrW\nnH|y mm: dun-mm y.. .ndve v-mm Pin 1: at as findlngs here ma plamml does nal have a blslir lar argulng lrlal me defendant am not comply wnn me plalnmra Dlscovaq ordar daled a 12 2020 In lerllng lo pmvlde rnanagemenl aamunls, recelpts Ind voucherslmm May 1995 lo l2 12 2019 [62] «mover, ll appeals lo me lnal ma plalnmfs anemalllve clann var RM2121500005 also unlustlfiible given my earllar findlngs In "Us regard, me plalnllff has filled to pmva ms case an a balance ol prubabllflles Funnennma slnce me plalnwl was an exclusrve agenl var ATAE NV‘: products‘ mare wns nolnlng alopplng mm lmrn gemng en IeI:uun|dlvec1lylram ATAB NV Ind rml walllng an lung and man marnlng me defandnnt lor nnl ralalnlng recavus and aacurnems when (M plalnml hnneell ssems In be slaeplng on ms rights The olher svldsnoa alum can be lcund W ma lacl lnel ll lock ma plalnnll a «lunar lnree and a hall yaars aller ma plalnmra pravlnus sollcllars sent a aelnena lenar to ma uelenaanl an 26 2 2015 In apne av me plalnlllrs gnel aver lne daalh or Mr Sada Raman ilnoe me plalmlfl and ma late Mr Sud: Rarnen were classmalssl me nlalnllfl has been wamng lor such a long period In enleroe ma ngnls ln we regard [ea] ln mus mnlext, lne maxim "deliy ueleale eqully" may also bu appllcable lo lne current slruatlon ms rs because lne pl-lrmlva renal lnr a declarlllon stands on Its awn as an equllebla lamedy In Bsrysmm um Ksong Hoe V Lim Kok may A Or: [zala] CLJU ale, wan Anrnad Fund wan Salleh JC (as Hls Lordslup men was) explalned this Issue In me lallnwmg exlracl mam Hls Lemmy’: ludgmenl rn Eunmlpnwznvaqmvvw “Nair Smnl nuvlhnrwm a. HIGH M my r... nflmrrnflly mm: dnuuvlnnl VII nrlum Wm! Paul!-:13; [40] Secnndly, me otanmmn trtetnmnt case eooomorueuaratoty tenets mtsraha lh:| tn. cenerat PA ta rncwded DI nmenmse Isl aside ll Is tnte law mat a declarluun Vi an amntaua rnmedyt cnen Kow V vew Sm Motorsuppry son Endl1994]4 cm :95 V7: Matan SAME!!! & Anorv Rose Foo cmn Lan 5 Ors /204771 5 Cu 405 CA Makmar Sldm JCA rewevaled the same praposmon r11 taw tnat he was "fully aware man flec\zra|\L)n ta an aquttaate ventedr Vn me aneutnstanoea me equitable remedy should be gnvemefl by eounahte maxlms my Tm atanmn look more Ihln 4 years lram ID I 2013 whan me plalnflfl had Wsl ngned a beam Ieaomllcn wtm tne 2“ delendanl In ms eapaotty ataaanee »n cnsstette dale aifilmu wflffli sum The oetay, VI my nnotng, n tnominate ucannm accept me atamma explanahon H1 ms stmng out AIR and statement at Clilm mat na had no reason to auspea anything was wrong wnmne Geneva! PA unuIlhe1" am: 2» aetenoanta launched an attack In a tetatee case a| ma Kua\a Lumpur mat. coon In the as tegtstereo as WA- 24Ncc-was/2017 W vespecl ata resaluhon ntaoe In cuss (“the os 10'; Smne me tettatmugnt are equnamen. namre W metonn at aedarahons, t eannat umerune mare tttan to venerule me lime honouved cqunable maxim mat delay oeteate eqmry [64] Ttna mutter proves tttat even N the Royalty Agreement nae never been lermmaled the p\aIr|IlW SKIH slept on ma ngttts In one soenano how can na Ihen say mat he was aented me opoottunny Ia awe the excmswlly ngnt Io nnpan me mes to another Dumpany7 It lunher estatansnes man the plavrmffs dim’! rot aggravated damages and other damages does ml have any basis am Euutunwwznvaqmvvw «ma a.nn n-nhnrwm a. med w my t... annmun am. flan-mm VII aF\uNG Wm! [55] [66] P130 an M3; IaIsa Iake mo npporlunlly here |o mentmn lhal evan wane dormancy Issue was not aammumcated to me pnaunnn, Ine Ian furmer shows IneI Ine pnaumm was not Inleruslad In pursuing his miller uespue Ine pIeInI.« eneges that ne nae Issued Ienera Inmugn lax an 29 7 I997 and so 5 1997, I nne am (here Ia rm evidence that may were sent Ie Ine aelendam There was no tax sen! wnfirmahnn pmducad Io auaw a menmrmus consuaevanon on Ims Iswe As a iIn:I noIe on Inns Issue and lov complexeneee I would me to address Ine aevendanrs detenee of IInuIaIIen In em: regard I find IneI Inere was an acknwIeasIemenI cf debl made by me delendam wnen payments av RM55Iooo 00 were made, as dlscussed above consmenng Inese paymenlswere nude between Oclobev 2015 and Deoember2D15. me pIe-nmv rIIeeInIs acmn wIInIn cne IegaI nmehne In December 2019 This aeveecs the defence or IImnaIIan To Irua end‘ sedwcn 2612) cf Ine Llmnahan Act 1953 Dim/Ides hr Ine Ionowung 25 Fvesh accrual avecnan on acxnwneagrnenI at par! payment (2; Wheve any ngnc eI achnn nas accrued Io lemme! any debt or aI»erIIqInaaIee pecuniary dzlm, orany I:Ia-nI IoIne persanaIesIaIe cl a deceased person or to any share or Imeresc Iherem, and me person name or awwunlable merelul acknowledges me clam! or makes any payment In Iespeu mereer. me right srIaH be aeemeu Ia have seemed an and nn|be1oI20Ie data unne aoknowlmtgmenl or me last paymem en zummpnwznweemm “Nana s.n.I ...n.mn a. II... M mm he nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII .nune v-mm [10] W} [12] [I3] [W [15] [15] mum; Based on me Roynhy Agraemanr, ma defandunl appaars to have excluswe ngma tc mlporl ma mes for sale In me Meflaysxln n-arke1 Fursuam meraln. a rayany advance avRM3o,mm 00 was pmd to me pmrnrm Thu: payment 0! RMSQDOD no was made as an aavanae {or law aumaquam mumhs. namawv June I995‘ July I995. Augun 1995 and Saplember I995 The plarnnfl, however, clam mar anev mus advance puymenl, ma defendant mled to pay him oonunuoua royally Di:/menls unm 0ctaber2015 As a result, me plarmm launched numerous Mlons ro oncam aucn paymems, mcludlng Iaxrng reminder Iauare lo DW| on 29 7 1997 Is wen as In the delendanx and DW1 on no 5 1997, nermar ovwrncn were sucnesslul Anolhev Vector aaxaa 712u15 was aem by me plammf In me delandanl nuagmg mar vanure In pay breached me Rayany Agreement ms led nwc to wane me phalnllfl wnh me personal rs) pcsmaxaa cnsquas amounting to RM55‘OD0 no The cheques were dated 19 to 2015 car RM5‘DOO co‘ 5 1: 2015101 RMICLOOO 00.912 ms «or RM1fl,DDG ac, 2A HZDIS for RMZODOO on am 212 2915 «or RM1n,ooc co. auegeaxv as royalty payments am Euu.H7LpnwEnPaumPvw mm. saw ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 w my r... mm-v mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max Page n M n Pmmded lhal a payment M n parlal the mu ov mmeu ous u my mm mu not extend ma perwd Var dzvmng ma remzlndev :2! m. mm m Irnaranl Ihen due, hm any piymenl av \n|eru( snan nm eflect Vor (ha owpom 01 this iubiechan unly‘ 25 n a wave 2 pavmenl In Ieipecl Mme pvmmpal oem VI/nether me cheques rssusdby Pan soon Tamg. auecmmltne defendant to me p/arnmramaunung to RM55 0110 III) are part of mya/ry payments on bsna/[aims defendant’ Whslher there exrsls a friendly loan agreement amounung lo RM55.UDOOO belween Pan soon Tsmg and the plamm and consequently alzlrged to rerun: mo sum of RM55,D00 so to Pah soon Temg7 [57] Born ul the Issues msnlvoned above can be addressed slmullanwusly [68] The uevenuam argues mat n Is me p\amuff‘s buvden In prove max RM55 me on was part Mme royally paymems p-id on bghalicflhe defendant The plznnw clowns, nwever, that DWI bears ma burden nl proving a friendly loan o1RM55‘0DG oo [59] \n this mgam, \ find that mete was no documentary evidence In pmve that K was Indeed a lnendw loan may man the vaucnm man ave not zone to prove me «eons or candmons ml the ion Furlhermure, nw1 agreed that uwu ne wno wrote‘ 'aemg payment tor Settlement on nanau 0! Beat we Marketing 5113' In lam nww sm zummpnwzowansom mm. s.nn ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 w my n. nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl wa mum Wm! Fan 11 .n 3; agreed mm man or mass facis during ms crass-exannnauan Funnev, (here wars no previous demands tram ow: n 4: was Indeed .-. manaly man [w] \n m aspem, my earhar nnmngs suggest that nww pm RM5§,DGD 00 lo |he p\aH'|lLW as part 07 the royaky payments due In the p\aIn1M Moreover, 1 cannot accept DWI‘s exmanaluon mat he lashed Me p\a\nml the money because the planmxfl refused to Weave ms omce umess such an Amount of money was learned lo Hie plamufl Yhelads and evidence that have been duh! anmysed abave cleariy relule such I dawn conclusion [11] Based on me findmgs above I am baund xu dlsrmss both the walmrffs c\aIm and DW1‘s counterclavm The pames are to new view own costs a%:;%€> [RI-IA AHMAD MOHZANUDDIN SHAH) Jlldlclal Cnmmxssluner Hwgn Caurt of Kua\a Lumpur Dated 20'” November 2023 sm zummpnwznwaumww. mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my n. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Put u at n For me Plamnll - Messrs Ganesh ace Ganesh Ferumal. Ravmdara Kumar Ramasamy‘ Shasha Aqunah Am 8. Armin Huda Ahmad Fm ms Davenaam — Messls J M Chang vmcem Che: 5. co Chns Tan Yew Hang, Cheang or-un smmg a. N9 vom Ghee tpupfl m chambers) sm Euumnpnwznvaqmwvw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [171 H81 H91 [301 [21] Vzgas an; n I: mlersalmg to mm that n was Tanaooua was that xssued mraa vsumara for some ommsa paymams, an at wmch ware du\y s-gnea by uw1 c-an Vuuchev No HLB 515922 «mad 2: 112015 (or Rmmaoo no‘ Gash Vcuchef No HLEE 515923 dated 21 112015 [or Rmaooc on and an unaacaa cm Vouchav luv RM5.DO0 no the can ramams unmspulabia that ma dolanaam Ind Yanuoma Tiles shave ma same dwectol. DWI Accovdmg to me mavnlfll mass payments Iulallmg RM55,UOD no war: rvyilly paymanns Iar October 1995 mmugn Apnl 1996, ampunmg to RM7‘5DG an per month Hamever. nofurlhev payments nava been made by Ina aavenuunz up to ma vein! The plaintiff man mslrucled ms prewous aonsnms, Messrs Sada Raman a. Cu , ta vequesl mm ma delendam na accounts and sales sxansmenxs ham June 1995 m Febmavy me as wan as lhe smsaanmng myally sum cue to mm ms was made by way av a water dated 252 zuua much had sumuuaneousxy unknawladgad ma aam sum M RM55,000DG Yhe uevendann nswaver, rm not responded |o (he phlwnufl armougn ma demand wsa aummaa to having baen veaawed demand Due to ma deYanuam's alleged mum to pay ma puamun me rammmng myany payments, ma pnaunmmaa W5 breach M cantrld claim agamsl ma cmanaam The plaunmr mans: alums man as a result av ms Voss me defendant has been unjusuy anncnaa as we», mareny depriving mm of ms legmmala expemalmn ov myany paymems am Euu.H7LpnwEnPaqmPvw «ma am ...n.mm a. med w mm s. nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max regents! [221 At [ms DDVIL K ts Imponanl to not: tnat ma delendant presents n dtffsrenl velslun ole»/ems Accnrdtng to me devendant. nu company nae bean dormant stnoe 2005 As lor tne RM55,00D on payment‘ the detenaant and own cl-Im lhal tne ptatntm requested flnanntel asststance wnen he met wttn DWI Ill Octcber 2015 wnen tns ptatntm retused to tame ms premises wtthout financial assistance, DW1 granted him a lrtendly man‘ and those payment: were not myzlly payments [231 This led to Dwvs counlerclavm lar RM55,ooo an Issue below: the court [24] These are the five common tssues to be med that need to be resdtved belwsen me parties (at Whemer the defendant hat! engaged tn hustness transachons wtttt ATAB NV mm 15 51995Iv\I1212 2019 betng the date of the mtng oflhe stm tn) Whether the platnm ts enmted tar all attne royalty payments item (he seemed dale a1 25 5V!-196101212 20157 (C) wnetnertne cnequee Issued by Fch Soon remg. dnecm anne detendant In tne ptatmmameunttng la RM55,ooo on are pan 0! myany Pavmenls on behalf of tne derendanrv em gamut wznwaqmvvw “Nat: s.n.t ..E'%..mttt .. med m vs-W n. nflfltnnflly aunt: dun-mm vu mnne Wm! Pan 1 um ta) Whemev there extsts a lnsndly toan agveemenl amaummg to RM5s,nna no bmween Poh Soon Temg and the ptatnuvt, -na consequently obliged to Ielum tha sum o4 RM55,0D0 no In Pan Soon Te<ng7 (9) whether the plamlfll ts the exctuswe agent for ATAB NV as al\egad7 Court’: malyuia and llndings whsthsrtns plamtvflls me excrusnm agsnl farATAE NV as alleged’ [251 Based on the anatysts Mme Issues belare me, I find (ha! tt ts crIJC\a\ that laddvess the last Issue mssd by the pames mst since me tssue nrtne ptatntm being an excmswe agent ts cvlllcal war In addveasmg nlhav tssues [26] In thus regam, the ptatnmmatms In be tneexuuswa agent mama Nv, tne taotgtan me manulamuvev [271 Meanwmlq me delendam mamlims that (here was no evidence pvesented by the pta-nttma prove that he was ATAB N\/‘s exclusive agenl Due to thus, the aetenaant argues that the ptatntm has lafled Ia estanttan mmself as the "exclusive agent" Im ATAB NV It tsworth noting that sum: then, AYAB NV has changed Ks name |o IKO NV sm zummpnwznwanmm «mt. Sam ...n.mm .. u... M my t... nflmnaflly mm: dun-mm VII muhc vlmxt mamas [251 An Issue on ma nature wm raqwe IN exammallon av me Royalty Agteemenl pnar An anyxmng use The Rayany Agveemenl Is reproduced below m us enwaty m ordav Io pmvrde clmy no-—n..e mm. to-nu-.9 ................u.....n.-.-an--:.....-....a... ...».........«.v.on--..»-.-...m.»...s...u......m..u.-»»—- ...4...«.........,....m-um as...-..:..u....«.....-.....«..... -......»..u....fl...... :m...mu.u.u-.uumur..u~.mmmu—_—».n.-mm; .......« m ...».......=-_....»o.-.u.~un.-..au...-....m..-a«uawv..a. »-.w...u......m...m..». »..m..-up.--».....u..u. mm... .. .m........=...»........»-.~n-..,....nu.....m.... ......—».u.so—m......m m........»...s...4..« ......a.....-M-.....a..r...............a..‘.nu.,... .......m~.....- v-r-I—uu—avu-v-9 mm-.-. ..na..u....-...ou..._m...nam .2 .m.«..»....-...x...n.—.........._..~. ».....a...............v.n...-..uu..ms u. »._...-vu_..,...............s.».....¢...»........m... ....‘..u..............mo.»..-.~_.._4...—.—..m...u« ....u« 1IvnuAc|un—p1-wodr-rivwv-«IAIN!-4%.-n-nnt mum M.-.-.—.,4».u-mu.-m.un....y.-n-.. ....«.n........... u m.....-.....n...,...-......u».-u.--‘...._m. .............u....«- n ».....o-an 2-. n........u-...-».....»u .........mu»...-»................»n....~.......m..u.. .p-u~.-.......m;._n...»..._....»-......_.w -~41/+3 / ...n.».-mums. -mun WEDPEQWPW4 flm W [19] [30] [311 [37] V35: 5127)! As pan 0! me process cl eoareaalng lnrs lssuar lne lael mar lna Royally Agreement exrsls further provrues clanly ln relarron In lna parI>es' peemens al lne lnne There Is no uoubl that me plalnlrll and me oelenaanl nccepled me exrslence and slgnmg cl Ihls Igreement There VS‘ Iharolarer no banter evldence re suppon zne llnarng on INS lssue man we Royalty Agreement Upon lunner veadlrlg at such an agreemenl n appears la me that lne plalnxrw nae conlerreo lne delendanl wnn me Hg!!! to moon lne pmducls dlvectly lrcm Belglum In parallel wlln each orrrers responsrollmea, ma celenaanl ralems rne ngnl lo be pralecleu as me sole lmponer cl lne product may use Malayaran marke| lor as lung as me Igreemerll remarna ln eflecl As pan cl |he Royally Agreenrern lne alarnllll wlll have lhe ms! oclron lo re|alrl exclusrve nghle ll me delenoenl decldes Io wllhdruw vrom ATAB NV‘; excluarve arranaamenl ln me agreemenn, lhe (aim ‘excluslvd nas been used speclfrcally lorlnarpuroose Besraea lnrs, even DWI agreed rnal me Rayally Agreemem nas never been lermrnalea or cancelled ln aroer lo amve at me approprlale oonalusron, I must also ccnslder lne evroenoe plesermlfl dunng me lnal conelaenng rms I «ma met me uelenoanl nas clearly aonrmeo no such an rssue lnal I am belng pvesenled wlln ms belrlg si>d,DW1‘duNlgIhe cross-examlnallun ol nrrn byme learned plarnlllrs counsel, agreed not only II.) me (an lnal me plalnlrw had lnlarmeo hlm met me olalnml was an official agenl MATAB NV and that ne lrusled lna leller lrom ATAB NV rnal rnurcaleo so, our DWI also agreed lnal, srnoe me plllrmfl gave me am Euuuvlwwznwaqmww “Nana s.n.l luvlhnrwm re med w my r... nflmnellly mm: dnuuvlnnl wn mane war 033591517433 defendant me ngm Ind pevmmad (ha delendanl access to ATAB NV‘ me uerenaanc «nan pmceeaea lo purcnase me ploducts dlrszmy (mm ATAB NV wnhom me plawnlfis Irwolvemenl [331 In light 01 me evidence pvesented dunng me M151. .1 the detendanl As suggashng there were me: agents semng ATAH NV’: pvodudi men nus must be proved by me defendant In me even! me aevendanx tens to plow: «nus than mew aetenee mus! 13H an «ms basxs tsectmns 101 and 10: 01 me Emdence Act 1950) [341 Faflomng my eensmerauon 0! this wssue and analysis av (he above «ms, n Is 5313 for me In eunevuae that me plamxm has been the excmswe agant cor ATAB NV based on me evudence that was pvesemed at mm [as] I lurlher mnclude ma: bases on me findmgs above, me defendanrs argun1snlm.It|he plamlfll clnnol be said In be me excluswe agent 0! ATAE NV necause he auegemy ma nex know wnmner ATAE NV manuiauured omy Pol'X or may pmducts does not stand up «u lhe has vvnsrnerrna de/amen! had engaged in busmess rransacoons mm ATAB NV Imm 16 6 1995M/12 12 2019 Damg the dare onne flfmg ofme suit’ [35] The planmwfl exams that me Royaxcy Agreement has never been Iermmaxed Based on DW1‘s awn evidence, I found Ihls to be «me, as pfavwausly menfloued Now that Ihe piamnffs Issue an this has been semea, I wvll take a closer look at me delendanfs posnlmn sm zummpnwznwanmm mm. smnw n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm wn mune Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

02(f)-4-01/2023(P)

PERAYU ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD RESPONDEN JKP SDN BHD

1. Enforcement of the Adjudication Decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)2. Whether the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012?3. Whether an adjudicator is prohibited from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract in allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party?4. Whether the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction?

12/01/2024

YA Dato' Nordin Bin HassanKorumYAA Tan Sri Abdul Rahman bin SebliYA Dato' Mary Lim Thiam SuanYA Dato' Nordin Bin Hassan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=05ed7185-17f0-4e42-a9a7-1e9353d077e8&Inline=true

1 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) BETWEEN ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ... APPELLANT AND JKP SDN BHD ... RESPONDENT [In the matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. P-02(C)(A)-831-07/2020] Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Appellant And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Respondent (In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang) Originating Summons No. PA-24C-12-10/2019 Between Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Plaintiff And JKP Sdn Bhd ... Defendant 12/01/2024 16:22:32 02(f)-4-01/2023(P) Kand. 44 S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 (HEARD TOGETHER WITH) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-4-01/2023(P) BETWEEN ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ... APPELLANT AND JKP SDN BHD ... RESPONDENT [In the matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. P-02(C)(A)-825-07/2020] Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Appellant And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Respondent (In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang Originating Summons No. PA-24C(ARB)-4-10/2019) S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Plaintiff And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Defendant CORAM ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI, CJSS MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, FCJ NORDIN HASSAN, FCJ THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT [1] Anas Construction Sdn Bhd (‘’the appellant’’) filed two appeals before this Court against the decisions of the Court of Appeal. Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) is against the decision of the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the High Court to allow the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision dated 12.9.2019 under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”). Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-4- 01/2023(P) is against the decision of the Court of Appeal in setting aside the decision of the High Court in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the said Adjudication Decision. [2] This Court on 3.1.2023 had granted the appellant’s leave to appeal on the following questions of law, namely: S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (i) Do the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012? (ii) Whether the dicta in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 prohibit an adjudicator from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract when allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party? (iii) In a CIPAA Award, does the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction, such that the said Award ought to be set aside? The Background Facts [3] JKP Sdn Bhd (“the respondent”) appointed the appellant as the main contractor for the construction and completion of a project, for a sum of RM67,994,500 under a Construction Contract dated 9.4.2015 (“the Contract”). The project was known as “Cadangan Membina dan Menyiapkan Satu (1) Blok Pangsapuri 24 Tingkat Rumah Pangsa Kos Sederhana (392) Unit di atas Tanah Tebusguna Kerajaan, Kampung S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Pisang Awak, Seksyen 4, Bandar Jelutong, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang” (“the Project”) [4] In carrying out the Project, the appellant had engaged independent professional consultants, Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA to provide a report in regards to cracked beams and a safety report. The consultants’ fees incurred by the appellant were RM 855,074.21 (inclusive of GST 6%). However, the respondent allegedly had failed, neglected, or refused to pay the said amount resulting the matter being brought to the Adjudicator for adjudication under CIPAA. [5] The Payment Claim dated 6.3.2019 was served on the respondent by the appellant under section 5 of CIPAA for the sum of RM855,074.21, the amount claimed under the Payment Claim. [6] In the Payment Claim, the appellant pleaded clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract to establish its cause of action against the respondent. Paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Payment Claim states as follows: “32. The Amount Claim under this Payment Claim is due and payable to the Unpaid Party since 9 July 2017 read together with clauses 55, 56, 28 of the P.W.D Contract and pursuant to Section 36(3) and (4) of the CIPA Act 2012. In the absence of a contractual provision of time of payment, the amount claimed can be deemed due and payable within thirty [30] days from the date of submission of the Unpaid Party’s revised Final Claim.” S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 33. TAKE NOTICE that you, being the Non-Paying Party are required to remit to the Unpaid Party the sum of RM855,074.21 being the amount claimed under this Payment Claim and this Payment Claim is made pursuant to section 5 of CIPA Act 2012.” (emphasis added) [7] The respondent in its Payment Response dated 22.3.2019, which was made under section 6 of CIPAA and served on the appellant’s solicitor, disputed the appellant’s claim on the basis that the appellant’s claim does not fall within the meaning of “construction contract” under section 5(1) of CIPAA. Further, it was contended that in the Revised Final Draft Claim, the Professional Fees and Charges for Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA had been deleted. This is stated at paragraph 4 of the Payment Response as follows: “4. In reply to paragraph 15 of the Payment Claim, the non-paying party contends that there is a latest Revised Final Draft Claim issued by JUBM whereby the Professional Fees and Charges for the Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA for the sum of RM855,074.21 have totally been deleted.” (emphasis added) [8] Further, in the Adjudication Claim served by the appellant on the respondent pursuant to section 9(1) of CIPAA, the appellant again at paragraph 63, relied on clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract to support its claim for the professional consultants’ fees. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [9] In the Adjudication Response served by the respondent on the appellant under section 10(1) of CIPAA, the respondent contended that the relevant clause in relation to the appellant’s claim would be clause 36.5 of the Contract which was not relied upon by the appellant. [10] On 12.9.2019, pursuant to section 12(2) of CIPAA, the Adjudicator handed down the Adjudicator Decision which allowed the appellant’s claim. The adjudicator found that the appellant has proved its case on the balance of probabilities and ordered the following: (i) the respondent is to pay the appellant the outstanding amount of RM806,673.78 (excluding the GST) as sought in the Payment Claim within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of the Banker’s Cheque; (ii) interest of 5% per annum on the Adjudication Sum; (iii) the respondent is to pay the appellant the costs of the adjudication in the sum of RM11,070.88 within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of Banker’s Cheque; (iv) the respondent is to pay party-to-party costs in the sum of RM20,000 within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of the Banker’s Cheque. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [11] In coming to the Adjudication Decision to allow the appellant’s claim, the Adjudicator relied on clause 36.6 of the Contract rather than clauses 28, 55, and 56 of the Contract as submitted by the appellant in the Payment Claim and the Adjudication Claim. The Adjudicator in his Adjudication Decision found that clause 36.6 is most applicable to the appellant’s claim and not even clause 36.5 as submitted by the respondent. [12] At the High Court, the application by the appellant to enforce the Adjudication Decision under section 28 of the CIPAA was allowed by the learned High Court Judge who consequently dismissed the respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Decision. In her decision, the learned High Court judge found that the Adjudicator did not act beyond his jurisdiction and acted fairly and independently. [13] However, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the High Court was set aside on the ground that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction when deciding the adjudication on the clause of the Contract that was not relied upon by the appellant in its Payment Claim and Adjudication Claim to support its cause of action. Further, the omission of the Adjudicator to invite parties to submit on clause 36.6 of the contract relied upon by the Adjudicator to support his decision is a denial of natural justice. The High Court’s decisions in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Decision and in allowing the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision were set aside. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [14] Aggrieved with the Court of Appeal decisions, the appellant appealed against the decisions and is now before this Court for determination. The Appeal [15] Counsel for the appellant submitted that strict rules of pleadings should not apply to CIPAA proceedings which are designed to be informal, speedy, and accessible to the layman for interim and temporary reliefs. The imposition of strict rules of pleadings is incorrect on inter alia, the following grounds: (i) section 8(3) of CIPAA allows parties to be self-represented in CIPAA proceedings or be represented by laypersons such as architects or claim consultants or non-lawyers; (ii) section 13 of CIPAA states that CIPAA Proceedings is designed only as an interim forum; (iii) a Payment Claim is merely to be issued to kickstart the claim under the CIPAA regime, and not necessarily be a document to be referred to or before the Adjudicator in determining the claim. What is eventually referred to in the substantive adjudication is merely the dispute arising from the Payment Claim and Payment Response as envisaged under section 7(1) of CIPAA; S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (iv) there is no requirement under section 9(1) for the claimant to raise in the Adjudication Claim specific references, submissions, and clauses applicable in the construction contract. [16] Thus, Question 1, it was submitted, ought to be answered in the negative. [17] Next, counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no prohibition for an Adjudicator from referring to a specific clause in the Contract not stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudication Claim in allowing the claimant’s claim. Therefore, the answer to Question 2 should be in the negative. [18] Further, it was contended by counsel for the appellant that the Adjudicator’s consideration of reliance on a specific clause not mentioned in the Payment Claim and the Adjudication Claim in allowing the claim without inviting parties to submit on the application of the said clause does not amount to a breach of natural justice or an act in excess of jurisdiction. Question 3 should also be answered in the negative. [19] In the circumstances, it was submitted that both appellants’ appeals should be allowed. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [20] In response, counsel for the respondent in essence, submitted that the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is provided under section 27(1) of CIPAA and limited to matters found in sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. In other words, the Adjudicator's jurisdiction is to adjudicate matters in the Payment Claim and the Payment Response and any changes in this rule of engagement would need written consent between the parties as provided under section 27(2) of CIPAA. In this case, clause 36.6 was never relied upon by the appellant in the Payment Claim which has been the basis for the Adjudicator to allow the appellant’s claim. As such, it was argued that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction. [21] In addition, the respondent contended that the Adjudicator’s failure to invite parties to submit on the issue relating to clause 36.6 of the Contract which was the basis of the Adjudicator’s decision, amounted to a breach of natural justice. This is also grounds to set aside the Adjudication Decision as provided under section 15(b) of CIPAA. The Decision of This Court [22] In determining the present appeal before us, the main issue here is the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator as provided under CIPAA. Statutory provisions under CIPAA have provided among others the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator which is spelled out under section 27(1) as follows: “27. Jurisdiction of Adjudicator S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 1) Subject to subsection (2), the adjudicator’s jurisdiction in relation to any dispute is limited to the matter referred to adjudication by the parties pursuant to sections 5 and 6. 2) The parties to adjudication may at any time by agreement in writing extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to decide on any other matter not referred to the adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6.” (emphasis added) [23] The wording of section 27 of CIPAA is plain and unambiguous and as such, must be given its literal and ordinary meaning by the court. The intention of Parliament in its clear wording of the statute must be given its effect. [24] This court in PP v Sihabduin Haji Salleh & Anor [1981] CLJ 39; [1980] 2 MLJ 273 explained this principle of law as follows: “... to paraphrase the words of Lord Diplock at page 541 in, Duport Steels Ltd v. Sirs, 'the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral;...” (emphasis added) S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (see also Dr Koay Cheng Boon v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia [2012] 4 CLJ 445; [2012] 3 MLJ 173 (FC); Abdul Hakim bin Abdul Wahid v Mas Ermieyati binti Samsudin & Another Appeal [2023] 6 CLJ 667 (FC)] [25] The plain meaning of section 27(1) of CIPAA is that the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator is limited to matters referred to by parties to the Adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. Section 5 relates to the Payment Claim whilst section 6 relates to the Payment Response. For ease of reference, sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA are reproduced below: (i) Section 5 “5. Payment Claim 1) An unpaid party may serve a payment claim on a non-paying party for payment pursuant to a construction contract. 2) The payment claim shall be in writing and shall include— a) The amount claimed and due date for payment of the amount claimed; b) Details to identify the cause of action including the provision in the construction contract to which the payment relates; c) Description of the work or services to which the payment relates; and d) A statement that it is made under this Act. (ii) Section 6 “6. Payment Response S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 1) A non-paying party who admits to the payment claim served on him shall serve a payment response on the unpaid party together with the whole amount claimed or any amount as admitted by him. 2) A non-paying party who disputes the amount claimed in the payment claim, either wholly or partly, shall serve a payment response in writing on the unpaid party stating the amount disputed and the reason for the dispute. 3) A payment response issued under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served on the unpaid party within ten working days of the receipt of the payment claim. 4) A non-paying party who fails to respond to a payment claim in the manner provided under this section is deemed to have disputed the entire payment claim (emphasis added) [26] Section 5(b) requires the claimant to include in the Payment Claim the cause of action and the provision under the contract to which the payment relates. Thus, the claimant must identify the cause of action and the provision under the Contract that supports the cause of action. If not, the phrase ‘…including the provision in the construction contract..’ under the said subsection will be meaningless or otiose. Certainly, the Parliament does not legislate in vain (see Tony Phua Kiam Wee v Government of Malaysia & Another Appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 337 (FC); Positive Vision Labuan Ltd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals [2017] 9 CLJ 595 (FC)) S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [27] If this court were to accede to the appellant’s argument that it did not have to identify the provision in the Contract that supports its cause of action, the question may then be asked: Does the law, procedural or substantive, allow the appellant to disregard subsection 5(2)(b) which mandatorily (‘shall’) requires it to include in its payment claim the provision in the Contract to which the payment relates? I do not think so. Effect must be given to the clear intention of Parliament. [28] In any event, the cause of action in a contract must relate to a provision or provisions in the said contract to support the claim. The cause of action arises when there is a breach of a provision of the said contract or the payment becomes due under the provision of the contract. Therefore, the cause of action is subject to the agreed provisions in a contract. Thus, that is the rationale behind section 27(1) which requires the relevant provision in the contract. [29] This court in Nasri v Mesah [1971] 1 MLJ 32 had explained succinctly the meaning of cause of action and cause of action in relation to a contract in the following words: A "cause of action" is the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment (per Lord Esher MR in Read v. Brown [1888] 22 QBD 128, 131). In Reeves v. Butcher [1891] 2 QB 590, 511 Lindley LJ said: This expression, 'cause of action', has been repeatedly the subject of decision, and it has been held, particularly in Hemp v. Garland LR 4 QB 509, 511 decided in 1843, that the cause of action arises at the time when the debt could first have been recovered by action. The right to bring an action may arise on various S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 events, but it has always been held that the statute runs from the earliest time at which an action could be brought. In Board of Trade v. Cayzer, Irvine & Co. [1927] AC 610, 617. Viscount Dunedin described "cause of action" as that which makes action possible. Now, what makes possible an action founded on a contract is its breach. In other words, a cause of action founded on a contract accrues on the date of its breach. Similarly, the right to sue on a contract accrues on its breach. In the case of actions founded on contract, therefore, time runs from the breach (per Field J in Gibbs v. Guild [1881] 8 QBD 296, 302). In the case of actions founded on any other right, time runs from the date on which that right is infringed or there is a threat of its infringement (see Bolo's case LR 57 IA 325).” (emphasis added) [30] Section 27(1) of CIPAA expressly limits the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator to adjudicate matters referred to the Adjudicator to sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. This had also been acknowledged by this court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 where Zulkefli PCA said this: “[54] The principle that jurisdiction is about subject-matter applies to every statute. Thus, the CIPAA applies only to ‘construction contracts’ as defined under the Act (see ss 2, 3, and 4), and that the ‘payment dispute’ must arise under a construction contract. These are fundamental jurisdictional premises for the CIPAA to apply. Sections 5 and 6 of the CIPAA relate to this. Section 5 of the CIPAA speaks of a ‘payment pursuant to a construction contract’. By s 4 of the CIPAA, ‘payment’ is defined as ‘payment for work done … under the express terms of a construction contract’. The response under s 6 of the CIPAA has to be in relation to the ‘payment’ claim under ss 4 and 5 of the CIPAA as to whether it is admitted or disputed. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [55] By s 27(1) of the CIPAA, the arbitrator’s jurisdiction ‘is limited to the matter referred to adjudication’ pursuant to ss 5 and 6 of the CIPAA. It refers to the ‘identification of the cause of action’ in relation to the construction contract as required under s 5(2)(b) of the CIPAA. In turn, the payment response under s 6 of the CIPAA is defined and limited by the claim under s 5 of the CIPAA. [56] In short, s 27(1) of the CIPAA refers to the subject matter of the claim under s 5 of the CIPAA, which is the ‘cause of action’ identified by the claimant by reference to the applicable clause of the construction contract. Thus, if the payment claim relates to progress claim No 28 (as in the present case) the jurisdiction of the adjudicator is limited to this progress claim and nothing else. The payment response is likewise limited to an answer to progress claim No 28. [57] It can thus be said that the appellant’s case regarding the jurisdiction referred to in s 27(1) of the CIPAA, is the subject matter of the claim and the cause of action as that identified under the relevant provision of the construction contract. By s 27(2) of the CIPAA, the parties may by consent extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to cover other matters. A typical example will be that of other progress claims falling due before the adjudication commences. Section 27(1) of the CIPAA has nothing to do with the grounds of the claim or the reasons for opposing the claim.” (emphasis added) [31] In the View Esteem case, as alluded to above, emphasis was made by this court on the need to identify the applicable clause of the construction contract which relates to the cause of action. [32] The issue of the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction was also aptly observed by the learned High Court Judge (as she then was) in WRP Asia Pacific S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Sdn Bhd v NS Bluescope Lysaght Malaysia Sdn Bhd & other case [2015] 1 LNS 1236 as follows: “[27] Subsection 27(1) restricts the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to the matters found in sections 5 and 6. In short, the Adjudicator takes jurisdiction from the payment claim and the payment response; not from the adjudication claim, adjudication response, or even the adjudication reply. This is materially significant and important as this brings to bear the whole scheme of CIPAA 2012; that the adjudication proceedings is to deal with or resolve a payment dispute. That dispute is then referred to adjudication with the payment claim and payment response reduced into the formal forms as set out in sections 7 to 10. Because the parties are already in dispute mode and are aware of or familiar with their varying positions, the payment dispute is focused and intense. The Adjudicator’s sole task is to resolve that dispute for the reasons already made known between the parties; and nothing else. Any change to those rules of engagement requires a written consent between the parties and that is clear from subsection 27(2). Were it otherwise, there would be no fair play and ultimately, no confidence in the mechanism that has been so elaborately set up by Parliament. It makes no difference if there is no payment response; as the lack of a payment response simply means that the claimant who bears the burden of proving its claim anyway, has just got to get on with proving its claim.” (emphasis added) [33] At the risk of repetition, it is settled law that the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to matters referred to the Adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA. An adjudication beyond the matters referred to needs written consent from the parties as required under subsection 27(2) of the same Act. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [34] Having considered the law, I now revert to the present case. As alluded to earlier, the appellant in its Payment Claim, at paragraphs 32 and 33 claims the unpaid sum of RM855,074.21 based on clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract. For ease of reference and understanding, it is pertinent to reproduce the said clauses which are as follows: (i) Clause 28 – PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR AND INTERIM CERTIFICATES 28.1- When the contractor has executed work including delivery to or adjacent to the works of any unfixed materials or goods intended for incorporation into the works in accordance with the terms of this contract and their total value of work thereof has reached the sum referred to in Appendix, the SO shall at that time make the first valuation of the same. 28.2 – Thereafter, once (or more often at the discretion of the SO) during the course of each succeeding month the SO shall make a valuation of the works properly executed and of unfixed materials and goods delivered to or adjacent to the site, provided that the total value of work properly executed and the value of unfixed materials and goods as specified in clause 28.4 hereof, delivered to the site intended for incorporation into the works in each subsequent valuation shall not be less than the sum referred in the Appendix. 28.3 – Within fourteen (14) days from the date of any such valuation being made and subject to the provision mentioned in clause 28.1, the SO shall issue an Interim Certificate stating the amount due to the contractor. PROVIDED THAT the signing of this contract shall not be a condition precedent for the issue of the first Interim Certificate (and no other) so long as the Contractor has returned the Letter of Acceptance of tender duly signed and has deposited with the SO or the relevant insurance policies under clauses 15 and 18 hereof. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 28.4 – The amount stated as due in an Interim Certificate shall, subject to any agreement between the parties as to payment by stages, be the estimated total value of the work properly executed and up to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the unfixed materials and goods delivered to or date the valuation was made, less any payment (including advance payment) previously made paid under this Contract. PROVIDED THAT such certificate shall only include the value of the said unfixed materials and goods as and from such time as they are reasonably and properly and not prematurely delivered to or adjacent to the site and adequately protected against weather, damage, and deterioration. 28.5 – This clause shall not apply to any unfixed materials and goods which are supplied and delivered by the Nominated Suppliers for which payment shall be made for the full value of the unfixed materials and goods. 28.6 – Within a number of days as stated in Appendix (or if none stated then within thirty (30) days of the issue of any such Interim Certificate), the Government shall make a payment to the Contractor as follows: (a) where the Performance Bond is in the form of a Banker’s, Insurance, or Finance Company Guarantee, payment shall be made on the amount certified as due to the contractor in the said Interim Certificate; or (b) where the Performance Bond is in the form of a Performance Guarantee Sum; payment of the ninety percent (90%) on the amount certified as due to the contractor shall be made with the remaining ten percent (10%) being retained by the Government as a Performance Guarantee Sum. PROVIDED THAT when the sum retained is equivalent to five percent (5%) of the contract sum then in any subsequent Certificate, payment shall be made on the full amount certified as due to the Contractor. (ii) Clause 55 – EVENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF DEFAULT BY GOVERNMENT Default of Obligations S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (a) Events of Default If the Government without any reasonable cause fails to perform or fulfil any of its obligations which adversely affects the Works, then the Contractor may issue a notice specifying the default of the Government and requiring the Government to remedy the same within the period specified therein taking into account the nature of the remedy to be carried out by JKP Sdn Bhd or such other period as may be agreed by both Parties from the date of receipt of such notice. (b) Termination If JKP Sdn Bhd fails to remedy the default period specified in such notice issued under clause 55 (a) within the stipulated time therein, the Contractor shall have the right to forthwith terminate this Contract by giving written notice to the effect. (c) Consequences of Termination If this Contract is terminated under clause 55(b) (i) JKP Sdn Bhd shall pay to the Contractor – (a) the value of the Works carried out up to the date of termination; (b) the amounts payable in respect of any preliminary items so far as the work or service comprised therein has been carried out or performed and a proper proportion of any such items which have been partially carried out or performed; (c) the cost of materials or goods reasonably ordered for the Works which have been delivered to the contractor or of which the Contractor is legally liable to accept delivery (such materials or goods becoming the property of the Government upon such payment being made to the Contractor); and S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (d) a sum being the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the Contractor in so far as such expenditure has not been recovered by any other payments referred to in this sub-clause. (ii) For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties hereby agree that the Contractor shall not be entitled to any other form of losses including loss of profit, damages, claims, or whatsoever upon termination of this contract. (iii) Clause 56 – CERTIFICATE OF TERMINATION COSTS 56.1 - As soon as the arrangements for the completion of the Works made by the JKP Sdn Bhd enable the SO to make a reasonable accurate assessment of the ultimate cost of completing the Works following the termination of the Contractor’s employment and the engagement of other contractors or persons, and the amount of direct loss and/or damage caused to the Government due to the termination has been ascertained by the SO, then the SO may issue a certificate (hereinafter referred to as the “certificate of Termination Costs”) stating the completion Cost (herein defined) and the Final Contract Sum (hereinafter defined). 56.2 – The Completion Cost comprises the following sums, cost or expenditure: (a) the sums previously paid to the Contractor by JKP Sdn Bhd; (b) the sums paid or payable to other contractors or persons engaged to complete the Works; (c) any sums paid to sub-contractors or suppliers under clause 61 (d) any costs or expenditures incurred or to be incurred including On-Cost Charges incurred by JKP Sdn Bhd in completing the Works; and S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 (e) the amount of direct loss and/or damage caused to JKP Sdn Bhd due to the termination. 56.3 – The Final Contract Sum comprises of the following amounts or sums: (a) the amount which would have been payable under the Contract on the completion in accordance with the Contract, allowing any variations or other matters which would have resulted in an adjustment of the original Contract Sum; and (b) any other sums which JKP Sdn Bhd might be entitled under the terms of the Contract to deduct from the original Contract Sums, had the Contractor’s employment not been terminated. 56.4 The certification of Termination Costs shall state the difference between the Final Contract Sum and the Completion Cost. If the Final Contract Sum is less than the Completion Cost, the difference shall be the debt payable by the Contractor to the Government to the Contractor. 56.5 – The Certificate of Termination Costs shall be binding and conclusive on the Contractor as to the amount of such loss or damage specified therein. 56.6 - In the event the completion of the Works being undertaken departmentally, allowance shall be made, when ascertaining the amount to be certified as costs and expense incurred by the Government, for cost of supervision, interest, and depreciation on plant and all other usual overhead charges and profit as would be incurred if the works were completed by other contractors or persons. [35] However, the Adjudicator in this case, in his Adjudication Decision held that the most applicable clause for the appellant’s claim against the respondent is clause 36.6 of the Contract and allowed the claim based on S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 the said clause. In the Adjudication Decisions at paragraphs 100, and 101 this was said: “100. The respondent argued that the correct and crucial provision of the Contract is Clause 36.5 of the COC and that the Claimant has not invoking (sic) this provision in support of its claim. However, in my considered opinion, Clause 36.6 of COC are the one most applicable to the Claimant’s claim. Clause 36.6 of COC which provides as below: “36.6 Notwithstanding anything in clause 36.5, if the Contractor carries out any further test as required by the SO pursuant to clause 36.2 and the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials is not in accordance with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by the Contractor. But if the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials comply with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by JKP Sdn Bhd. (emphasis added).” 101. Clearly and certainly, in order to succeed the claim pursuant on the above clause, the burden is on the Claimant to show a cogent proof of whether the Claimant has received any instruction or direction by the Respondent or Respondent’s consultants under the Contract at the material time.” [36] Further, at paragraphs 104 and 105 of the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator states this: “104. As the Independent Consultants i.e. the Professional Engineer has certified and endorsed the building is safe and this would have meant that the Claimant has carried out the construction work are in accordance with the Contract. This is opposing to what allegation put forth by the Respondent that the construction S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 works carried out by the Claimant are not in accordance with the Contract and that had compromised the safety of the building. Therefore, pursuant to Clause 36.6 of the COC which further provides as below: “But if the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials comply with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by the JKP Sdn Bhd.” …… 105. By foregoing reason and considering all the facts and circumstances available to me, I am hold (sic) to determine that the Claimant has proved, on the balance of probabilities, and that the Respondent shall pay the cost of the Independent Consultants which engaged by the Claimant in produce the relevant report as instructed by the respondent’s consultants. (emphasis added) [37] Reading the paragraphs of the Adjudication Decision alluded to above, it is undoubtedly that the Adjudicator had relied on clause 36.6 of the Contract in allowing the appellant’s claim. This clause was not relied upon by the appellant in the Payment Claim filed under section 5 to establish its claim, nor mentioned by the respondent in the Payment Response filed under section 6 of CIPAA. In addition, having perused the Adjudication decision, there is nowhere to show that the Adjudicator relied on clauses 28, 55, or 56 of the Contract which were the provisions relied upon by the appellant in its Payment Claim to establish its cause of action. [38] As the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to matters referred to the Adjudicator under sections 5 and 6, and the cause of action based on S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 clause 36.6 was not relied upon in the Payment Claim, the Adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the dispute based on clause 36.6 of the Contract. The cause of action under clause 36.6 was not the appellant’s case in the Payment Claim or the respondent rebuttal in the Payment Response. [39] In our neighbouring country, Singapore, the Adjudicator is also clothed with the same limited jurisdiction as provided under section 17(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed). In explaining the application of the said provision, Sundaresh Menon CJ in WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 said this: “46. This subsection sets out what an adjudicator is permitted to consider and expressly provides that he “shall only have regard to [those] matters” [40] Likewise in the present case, section 27(1) has expressly limited the Adjudicator to adjudicate only matters pursuant to sections 5 and 6, not any other matters which have been discussed earlier. [41] Moreover, both parties have not given written consent to extend the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters relying on the cause of action established in clause 36.6 of the Contract as required under section 27(2) of CIPAA. In my view, if the Adjudicator finds that the cause of action was established under a different clause of the Contract, as in the present S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 case, the matter should be brought to the attention of the parties and if agrees, written consent be issued under section 27(2) to clothe the Adjudicator with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters based on the cause of action under clause 36.6. [42] On this ground of want of jurisdiction alone, the Adjudication Decision cannot stand. The Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction and ground to set aside the Adjudication Decision under section 15(d) of CIPAA which states: “15. Improperly Procured Adjudication Decision An aggrieved party may apply to the High Court to set aside an adjudication decision on one or more of the following grounds: a) The adjudication decision was improperly procured through fraud or bribery; b) There has been a denial of natural justice; c) The adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially; or d) The adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction.” (emphasis added) [43] The next issue before this Court is whether there was a denial of natural justice when parties in the present case were not given the right to be heard on the application of clause 36.6 which was the Adjudicator’s S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 basis for allowing the appellant’s claim. The denial of natural justice is also a ground to challenge the Adjudication Decision provided under section 15(b) of CIPAA. [44] The concept of natural justice is well settled that parties must be given the right to be heard before a decision is made. A judge should not decide on an issue which was not pleaded and it is not the duty of the court to create a cause of action under the guise of doing justice. This court in Pacific Forest Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor v Lin Wen-Chih & Anor [2009] 6 CLJ 430 reiterated this principle as follows: “[16] The court also decides a case after considering the evidence adduced by each party and documents produced by them. Neither party should be taken by surprise. Even in respect of law, whether it is the court at first instance or the appellate court, judges rely heavily on the submissions put forward by the respective counsel. A good counsel is one who produces authorities to support the statement of law he is relying upon. The authorities can be in the form of reported judgments, text books, or even published law articles. In fact, according to etiquette, he is supposed to even bring to the attention of the court authorities which favour his opponent’s case. Of course, in such an instance, he would then distinguish the facts of the case before the court to the case in the authority. It is therefore dangerous and totally unadvisable, for the court, on its own accord, to consider any point without reliance on any pleadings or submission by counsel appearing before them. If the learned judge thinks there are any points which are relevant to the case before him and which was not raised by either party, it is his duty to highlight that to the parties before him. He must then give an opportunity for both parties to further submit on that particular point. There have been instances where a judge may already form some opinion on certain issues, legal or otherwise, but S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 after hearing submissions and views expressed by a party, he may conclude differently. [17] The effect of a judge making a decision on an issue not based on the pleadings and without hearing the parties on that particular issue would be in breach of the latin maxim audi alteram partem, which literally means, to hear the other side, a basic principle of natural justice.” (emphasis added) [45] The same principle was acknowledged by this Court in Dato’ Tan Chin Woh v Dato’ Yalumallai V Muthusamy [2016] 8 CLJ 293 and further said this: “[21] It is thus clear that whenever the court proposes to consider a fresh issue which the court considers pertinent to the case before it, it should give the parties the right to make submissions on the proposed issue before arriving at its finding. This is fundamental in the adversarial system that we practice in this country.” (emphasis added) [46] Further, on the concept of natural justice, Tengku Maimun CJ in Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] 1 MLJ 750 at page 825 said this: [188] In simpler terms, natural justice which encapsulates the twin concepts of nemo judex in causa sua (the rule against bias) and audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), are integral features of a written constitution which protects S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 fundamental liberties. Both rights are equally important but for the purpose of this judgment, particular emphasis is given to the right to be heard. On that right, Bhagwati J observed in Maneka Gandhi that ‘the soul of natural justice is fair-play in action and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world’. (emphasis added) [47] Reverting to the present case, it is undisputed that parties were not given the opportunity to submit the cause of action under clause 36.6 of the Contract before the Adjudication decision was handed down. Besides the principle of the right to be heard, the submission by parties as highlighted in the Pacific Forest case, may persuade the judge or in the present case, the Adjudicator, to decide differently. The principle of natural justice includes allowing parties to present their case effectively. [48] In an old case, Semtex v Gladstone [1954] 2 All ER 206 at page 212, Finnemore J said this: “Natural justice requires that the appellant be given a full and adequate hearing, and opportunity to give evidence on behalf of himself if he so desires and to call such witnesses as he considers necessary for his case…Natural justice is not something which any one of us can define in our own terms. It is basic. (emphasis added) S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [49] In the circumstances, I find, the non-giving of the opportunity by the Adjudicator for the parties to submit or canvass the issue of cause of action under clause 36.6 before making the decision, is a denial of natural justice. [50] In the present case, the main question is whether the applicant’s cause of action established under any of the clauses in the Contract and pleaded in the Payment Claim are matters adjudicated by the Adjudicator as mandated under section 27(1) of CIPAA. The issue of strict rules of pleading in civil claims to be complied with does not arise and is misplaced as section 27(1) has underlined the limited jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to adjudicate matters referred to the Adjudicator under section 5, that is the Payment Claim and section 6, which is the Payment Response. The answer to this main question is in the negative. [51] Based on the analysis and views mentioned above, I find it unnecessary to answer the questions posed by the appellant for me to decide on this appeal. Conclusion [52] In the circumstances, both the appellant’s appeals are dismissed and the decisions of the Court of Appeal are affirmed. The appellant is to pay costs to the respondent in the sum of RM60,000.00 subject to S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 payment of the allocator. The Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak (CJSS) has read this judgment in the draft and has agreed to it. My learned sister Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan is dissenting. Dated 8 January 2024 - sgd - (DATO’ NORDIN BIN HASSAN) Judge Federal Court of Malaysia Counsel: For the Appellant: Ong Yu Shin Ong (Lee Hooi Ying & Lim Wooi Ying with him) [Messrs. The Chambers of Yu Shin Ong] For the Respondent: Dato’ Seri Mahinder Singh Dulku (Dato’ Abdul Fareed bin Abdul Gafoor & Farah Nabilah binti Shaharuddin with him) [Messrs. Ezrilaw Firm] S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

02(f)-4-01/2023(P)

PERAYU ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD RESPONDEN JKP SDN BHD

1. Enforcement of the Adjudication Decision under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)2. Whether the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012?3. Whether an adjudicator is prohibited from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract in allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party?4. Whether the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction?

12/01/2024

YA Dato' Nordin Bin HassanKorumYAA Tan Sri Abdul Rahman bin SebliYA Dato' Mary Lim Thiam SuanYA Dato' Nordin Bin Hassan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=05ed7185-17f0-4e42-a9a7-1e9353d077e8&Inline=true

1 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) BETWEEN ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ... APPELLANT AND JKP SDN BHD ... RESPONDENT [In the matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. P-02(C)(A)-831-07/2020] Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Appellant And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Respondent (In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang) Originating Summons No. PA-24C-12-10/2019 Between Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Plaintiff And JKP Sdn Bhd ... Defendant 12/01/2024 16:22:32 02(f)-4-01/2023(P) Kand. 44 S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 (HEARD TOGETHER WITH) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-4-01/2023(P) BETWEEN ANAS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD ... APPELLANT AND JKP SDN BHD ... RESPONDENT [In the matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. P-02(C)(A)-825-07/2020] Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Appellant And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Respondent (In the matter of the High Court of Malaya at Pulau Pinang Originating Summons No. PA-24C(ARB)-4-10/2019) S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Between JKP Sdn Bhd ... Plaintiff And Anas Construction Sdn Bhd ... Defendant CORAM ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI, CJSS MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, FCJ NORDIN HASSAN, FCJ THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT [1] Anas Construction Sdn Bhd (‘’the appellant’’) filed two appeals before this Court against the decisions of the Court of Appeal. Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-3-01/2023(P) is against the decision of the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the High Court to allow the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision dated 12.9.2019 under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”). Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-4- 01/2023(P) is against the decision of the Court of Appeal in setting aside the decision of the High Court in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the said Adjudication Decision. [2] This Court on 3.1.2023 had granted the appellant’s leave to appeal on the following questions of law, namely: S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (i) Do the strict rules of pleadings, as applicable in civil claims before the Malaysian Courts, apply in adjudicating proceedings under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012? (ii) Whether the dicta in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 prohibit an adjudicator from referring to a specific clause in a construction contract when allowing the claim when the said clause was not specifically stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudicating Claim by the claiming party? (iii) In a CIPAA Award, does the adjudicator’s consideration of a specific clause in the construction contract, not specifically stated in the Payment Claim or Adjudication Claim, without inviting parties to further submit on the said clause, amount to a breach of natural justice or an act excess in the jurisdiction, such that the said Award ought to be set aside? The Background Facts [3] JKP Sdn Bhd (“the respondent”) appointed the appellant as the main contractor for the construction and completion of a project, for a sum of RM67,994,500 under a Construction Contract dated 9.4.2015 (“the Contract”). The project was known as “Cadangan Membina dan Menyiapkan Satu (1) Blok Pangsapuri 24 Tingkat Rumah Pangsa Kos Sederhana (392) Unit di atas Tanah Tebusguna Kerajaan, Kampung S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Pisang Awak, Seksyen 4, Bandar Jelutong, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang” (“the Project”) [4] In carrying out the Project, the appellant had engaged independent professional consultants, Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA to provide a report in regards to cracked beams and a safety report. The consultants’ fees incurred by the appellant were RM 855,074.21 (inclusive of GST 6%). However, the respondent allegedly had failed, neglected, or refused to pay the said amount resulting the matter being brought to the Adjudicator for adjudication under CIPAA. [5] The Payment Claim dated 6.3.2019 was served on the respondent by the appellant under section 5 of CIPAA for the sum of RM855,074.21, the amount claimed under the Payment Claim. [6] In the Payment Claim, the appellant pleaded clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract to establish its cause of action against the respondent. Paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Payment Claim states as follows: “32. The Amount Claim under this Payment Claim is due and payable to the Unpaid Party since 9 July 2017 read together with clauses 55, 56, 28 of the P.W.D Contract and pursuant to Section 36(3) and (4) of the CIPA Act 2012. In the absence of a contractual provision of time of payment, the amount claimed can be deemed due and payable within thirty [30] days from the date of submission of the Unpaid Party’s revised Final Claim.” S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 33. TAKE NOTICE that you, being the Non-Paying Party are required to remit to the Unpaid Party the sum of RM855,074.21 being the amount claimed under this Payment Claim and this Payment Claim is made pursuant to section 5 of CIPA Act 2012.” (emphasis added) [7] The respondent in its Payment Response dated 22.3.2019, which was made under section 6 of CIPAA and served on the appellant’s solicitor, disputed the appellant’s claim on the basis that the appellant’s claim does not fall within the meaning of “construction contract” under section 5(1) of CIPAA. Further, it was contended that in the Revised Final Draft Claim, the Professional Fees and Charges for Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA had been deleted. This is stated at paragraph 4 of the Payment Response as follows: “4. In reply to paragraph 15 of the Payment Claim, the non-paying party contends that there is a latest Revised Final Draft Claim issued by JUBM whereby the Professional Fees and Charges for the Perunding Kejuruteraan MSY and Perunding ZNA for the sum of RM855,074.21 have totally been deleted.” (emphasis added) [8] Further, in the Adjudication Claim served by the appellant on the respondent pursuant to section 9(1) of CIPAA, the appellant again at paragraph 63, relied on clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract to support its claim for the professional consultants’ fees. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [9] In the Adjudication Response served by the respondent on the appellant under section 10(1) of CIPAA, the respondent contended that the relevant clause in relation to the appellant’s claim would be clause 36.5 of the Contract which was not relied upon by the appellant. [10] On 12.9.2019, pursuant to section 12(2) of CIPAA, the Adjudicator handed down the Adjudicator Decision which allowed the appellant’s claim. The adjudicator found that the appellant has proved its case on the balance of probabilities and ordered the following: (i) the respondent is to pay the appellant the outstanding amount of RM806,673.78 (excluding the GST) as sought in the Payment Claim within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of the Banker’s Cheque; (ii) interest of 5% per annum on the Adjudication Sum; (iii) the respondent is to pay the appellant the costs of the adjudication in the sum of RM11,070.88 within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of Banker’s Cheque; (iv) the respondent is to pay party-to-party costs in the sum of RM20,000 within 14 days from the date of the Adjudication Decision in the manner of the Banker’s Cheque. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [11] In coming to the Adjudication Decision to allow the appellant’s claim, the Adjudicator relied on clause 36.6 of the Contract rather than clauses 28, 55, and 56 of the Contract as submitted by the appellant in the Payment Claim and the Adjudication Claim. The Adjudicator in his Adjudication Decision found that clause 36.6 is most applicable to the appellant’s claim and not even clause 36.5 as submitted by the respondent. [12] At the High Court, the application by the appellant to enforce the Adjudication Decision under section 28 of the CIPAA was allowed by the learned High Court Judge who consequently dismissed the respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Decision. In her decision, the learned High Court judge found that the Adjudicator did not act beyond his jurisdiction and acted fairly and independently. [13] However, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the High Court was set aside on the ground that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction when deciding the adjudication on the clause of the Contract that was not relied upon by the appellant in its Payment Claim and Adjudication Claim to support its cause of action. Further, the omission of the Adjudicator to invite parties to submit on clause 36.6 of the contract relied upon by the Adjudicator to support his decision is a denial of natural justice. The High Court’s decisions in dismissing the respondent’s application to set aside the Adjudication Decision and in allowing the enforcement of the Adjudication Decision were set aside. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [14] Aggrieved with the Court of Appeal decisions, the appellant appealed against the decisions and is now before this Court for determination. The Appeal [15] Counsel for the appellant submitted that strict rules of pleadings should not apply to CIPAA proceedings which are designed to be informal, speedy, and accessible to the layman for interim and temporary reliefs. The imposition of strict rules of pleadings is incorrect on inter alia, the following grounds: (i) section 8(3) of CIPAA allows parties to be self-represented in CIPAA proceedings or be represented by laypersons such as architects or claim consultants or non-lawyers; (ii) section 13 of CIPAA states that CIPAA Proceedings is designed only as an interim forum; (iii) a Payment Claim is merely to be issued to kickstart the claim under the CIPAA regime, and not necessarily be a document to be referred to or before the Adjudicator in determining the claim. What is eventually referred to in the substantive adjudication is merely the dispute arising from the Payment Claim and Payment Response as envisaged under section 7(1) of CIPAA; S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (iv) there is no requirement under section 9(1) for the claimant to raise in the Adjudication Claim specific references, submissions, and clauses applicable in the construction contract. [16] Thus, Question 1, it was submitted, ought to be answered in the negative. [17] Next, counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no prohibition for an Adjudicator from referring to a specific clause in the Contract not stated in the Payment Claim and Adjudication Claim in allowing the claimant’s claim. Therefore, the answer to Question 2 should be in the negative. [18] Further, it was contended by counsel for the appellant that the Adjudicator’s consideration of reliance on a specific clause not mentioned in the Payment Claim and the Adjudication Claim in allowing the claim without inviting parties to submit on the application of the said clause does not amount to a breach of natural justice or an act in excess of jurisdiction. Question 3 should also be answered in the negative. [19] In the circumstances, it was submitted that both appellants’ appeals should be allowed. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [20] In response, counsel for the respondent in essence, submitted that the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is provided under section 27(1) of CIPAA and limited to matters found in sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. In other words, the Adjudicator's jurisdiction is to adjudicate matters in the Payment Claim and the Payment Response and any changes in this rule of engagement would need written consent between the parties as provided under section 27(2) of CIPAA. In this case, clause 36.6 was never relied upon by the appellant in the Payment Claim which has been the basis for the Adjudicator to allow the appellant’s claim. As such, it was argued that the Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction. [21] In addition, the respondent contended that the Adjudicator’s failure to invite parties to submit on the issue relating to clause 36.6 of the Contract which was the basis of the Adjudicator’s decision, amounted to a breach of natural justice. This is also grounds to set aside the Adjudication Decision as provided under section 15(b) of CIPAA. The Decision of This Court [22] In determining the present appeal before us, the main issue here is the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator as provided under CIPAA. Statutory provisions under CIPAA have provided among others the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator which is spelled out under section 27(1) as follows: “27. Jurisdiction of Adjudicator S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 1) Subject to subsection (2), the adjudicator’s jurisdiction in relation to any dispute is limited to the matter referred to adjudication by the parties pursuant to sections 5 and 6. 2) The parties to adjudication may at any time by agreement in writing extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to decide on any other matter not referred to the adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6.” (emphasis added) [23] The wording of section 27 of CIPAA is plain and unambiguous and as such, must be given its literal and ordinary meaning by the court. The intention of Parliament in its clear wording of the statute must be given its effect. [24] This court in PP v Sihabduin Haji Salleh & Anor [1981] CLJ 39; [1980] 2 MLJ 273 explained this principle of law as follows: “... to paraphrase the words of Lord Diplock at page 541 in, Duport Steels Ltd v. Sirs, 'the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral;...” (emphasis added) S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (see also Dr Koay Cheng Boon v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia [2012] 4 CLJ 445; [2012] 3 MLJ 173 (FC); Abdul Hakim bin Abdul Wahid v Mas Ermieyati binti Samsudin & Another Appeal [2023] 6 CLJ 667 (FC)] [25] The plain meaning of section 27(1) of CIPAA is that the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator is limited to matters referred to by parties to the Adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. Section 5 relates to the Payment Claim whilst section 6 relates to the Payment Response. For ease of reference, sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA are reproduced below: (i) Section 5 “5. Payment Claim 1) An unpaid party may serve a payment claim on a non-paying party for payment pursuant to a construction contract. 2) The payment claim shall be in writing and shall include— a) The amount claimed and due date for payment of the amount claimed; b) Details to identify the cause of action including the provision in the construction contract to which the payment relates; c) Description of the work or services to which the payment relates; and d) A statement that it is made under this Act. (ii) Section 6 “6. Payment Response S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 1) A non-paying party who admits to the payment claim served on him shall serve a payment response on the unpaid party together with the whole amount claimed or any amount as admitted by him. 2) A non-paying party who disputes the amount claimed in the payment claim, either wholly or partly, shall serve a payment response in writing on the unpaid party stating the amount disputed and the reason for the dispute. 3) A payment response issued under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served on the unpaid party within ten working days of the receipt of the payment claim. 4) A non-paying party who fails to respond to a payment claim in the manner provided under this section is deemed to have disputed the entire payment claim (emphasis added) [26] Section 5(b) requires the claimant to include in the Payment Claim the cause of action and the provision under the contract to which the payment relates. Thus, the claimant must identify the cause of action and the provision under the Contract that supports the cause of action. If not, the phrase ‘…including the provision in the construction contract..’ under the said subsection will be meaningless or otiose. Certainly, the Parliament does not legislate in vain (see Tony Phua Kiam Wee v Government of Malaysia & Another Appeal [2020] 1 CLJ 337 (FC); Positive Vision Labuan Ltd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Other Appeals [2017] 9 CLJ 595 (FC)) S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [27] If this court were to accede to the appellant’s argument that it did not have to identify the provision in the Contract that supports its cause of action, the question may then be asked: Does the law, procedural or substantive, allow the appellant to disregard subsection 5(2)(b) which mandatorily (‘shall’) requires it to include in its payment claim the provision in the Contract to which the payment relates? I do not think so. Effect must be given to the clear intention of Parliament. [28] In any event, the cause of action in a contract must relate to a provision or provisions in the said contract to support the claim. The cause of action arises when there is a breach of a provision of the said contract or the payment becomes due under the provision of the contract. Therefore, the cause of action is subject to the agreed provisions in a contract. Thus, that is the rationale behind section 27(1) which requires the relevant provision in the contract. [29] This court in Nasri v Mesah [1971] 1 MLJ 32 had explained succinctly the meaning of cause of action and cause of action in relation to a contract in the following words: A "cause of action" is the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment (per Lord Esher MR in Read v. Brown [1888] 22 QBD 128, 131). In Reeves v. Butcher [1891] 2 QB 590, 511 Lindley LJ said: This expression, 'cause of action', has been repeatedly the subject of decision, and it has been held, particularly in Hemp v. Garland LR 4 QB 509, 511 decided in 1843, that the cause of action arises at the time when the debt could first have been recovered by action. The right to bring an action may arise on various S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 events, but it has always been held that the statute runs from the earliest time at which an action could be brought. In Board of Trade v. Cayzer, Irvine & Co. [1927] AC 610, 617. Viscount Dunedin described "cause of action" as that which makes action possible. Now, what makes possible an action founded on a contract is its breach. In other words, a cause of action founded on a contract accrues on the date of its breach. Similarly, the right to sue on a contract accrues on its breach. In the case of actions founded on contract, therefore, time runs from the breach (per Field J in Gibbs v. Guild [1881] 8 QBD 296, 302). In the case of actions founded on any other right, time runs from the date on which that right is infringed or there is a threat of its infringement (see Bolo's case LR 57 IA 325).” (emphasis added) [30] Section 27(1) of CIPAA expressly limits the jurisdiction of an Adjudicator to adjudicate matters referred to the Adjudicator to sections 5 and 6 of the same Act. This had also been acknowledged by this court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 where Zulkefli PCA said this: “[54] The principle that jurisdiction is about subject-matter applies to every statute. Thus, the CIPAA applies only to ‘construction contracts’ as defined under the Act (see ss 2, 3, and 4), and that the ‘payment dispute’ must arise under a construction contract. These are fundamental jurisdictional premises for the CIPAA to apply. Sections 5 and 6 of the CIPAA relate to this. Section 5 of the CIPAA speaks of a ‘payment pursuant to a construction contract’. By s 4 of the CIPAA, ‘payment’ is defined as ‘payment for work done … under the express terms of a construction contract’. The response under s 6 of the CIPAA has to be in relation to the ‘payment’ claim under ss 4 and 5 of the CIPAA as to whether it is admitted or disputed. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [55] By s 27(1) of the CIPAA, the arbitrator’s jurisdiction ‘is limited to the matter referred to adjudication’ pursuant to ss 5 and 6 of the CIPAA. It refers to the ‘identification of the cause of action’ in relation to the construction contract as required under s 5(2)(b) of the CIPAA. In turn, the payment response under s 6 of the CIPAA is defined and limited by the claim under s 5 of the CIPAA. [56] In short, s 27(1) of the CIPAA refers to the subject matter of the claim under s 5 of the CIPAA, which is the ‘cause of action’ identified by the claimant by reference to the applicable clause of the construction contract. Thus, if the payment claim relates to progress claim No 28 (as in the present case) the jurisdiction of the adjudicator is limited to this progress claim and nothing else. The payment response is likewise limited to an answer to progress claim No 28. [57] It can thus be said that the appellant’s case regarding the jurisdiction referred to in s 27(1) of the CIPAA, is the subject matter of the claim and the cause of action as that identified under the relevant provision of the construction contract. By s 27(2) of the CIPAA, the parties may by consent extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to cover other matters. A typical example will be that of other progress claims falling due before the adjudication commences. Section 27(1) of the CIPAA has nothing to do with the grounds of the claim or the reasons for opposing the claim.” (emphasis added) [31] In the View Esteem case, as alluded to above, emphasis was made by this court on the need to identify the applicable clause of the construction contract which relates to the cause of action. [32] The issue of the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction was also aptly observed by the learned High Court Judge (as she then was) in WRP Asia Pacific S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Sdn Bhd v NS Bluescope Lysaght Malaysia Sdn Bhd & other case [2015] 1 LNS 1236 as follows: “[27] Subsection 27(1) restricts the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to the matters found in sections 5 and 6. In short, the Adjudicator takes jurisdiction from the payment claim and the payment response; not from the adjudication claim, adjudication response, or even the adjudication reply. This is materially significant and important as this brings to bear the whole scheme of CIPAA 2012; that the adjudication proceedings is to deal with or resolve a payment dispute. That dispute is then referred to adjudication with the payment claim and payment response reduced into the formal forms as set out in sections 7 to 10. Because the parties are already in dispute mode and are aware of or familiar with their varying positions, the payment dispute is focused and intense. The Adjudicator’s sole task is to resolve that dispute for the reasons already made known between the parties; and nothing else. Any change to those rules of engagement requires a written consent between the parties and that is clear from subsection 27(2). Were it otherwise, there would be no fair play and ultimately, no confidence in the mechanism that has been so elaborately set up by Parliament. It makes no difference if there is no payment response; as the lack of a payment response simply means that the claimant who bears the burden of proving its claim anyway, has just got to get on with proving its claim.” (emphasis added) [33] At the risk of repetition, it is settled law that the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to matters referred to the Adjudicator pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of CIPAA. An adjudication beyond the matters referred to needs written consent from the parties as required under subsection 27(2) of the same Act. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [34] Having considered the law, I now revert to the present case. As alluded to earlier, the appellant in its Payment Claim, at paragraphs 32 and 33 claims the unpaid sum of RM855,074.21 based on clauses 28, 55 and 56 of the Contract. For ease of reference and understanding, it is pertinent to reproduce the said clauses which are as follows: (i) Clause 28 – PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR AND INTERIM CERTIFICATES 28.1- When the contractor has executed work including delivery to or adjacent to the works of any unfixed materials or goods intended for incorporation into the works in accordance with the terms of this contract and their total value of work thereof has reached the sum referred to in Appendix, the SO shall at that time make the first valuation of the same. 28.2 – Thereafter, once (or more often at the discretion of the SO) during the course of each succeeding month the SO shall make a valuation of the works properly executed and of unfixed materials and goods delivered to or adjacent to the site, provided that the total value of work properly executed and the value of unfixed materials and goods as specified in clause 28.4 hereof, delivered to the site intended for incorporation into the works in each subsequent valuation shall not be less than the sum referred in the Appendix. 28.3 – Within fourteen (14) days from the date of any such valuation being made and subject to the provision mentioned in clause 28.1, the SO shall issue an Interim Certificate stating the amount due to the contractor. PROVIDED THAT the signing of this contract shall not be a condition precedent for the issue of the first Interim Certificate (and no other) so long as the Contractor has returned the Letter of Acceptance of tender duly signed and has deposited with the SO or the relevant insurance policies under clauses 15 and 18 hereof. S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 28.4 – The amount stated as due in an Interim Certificate shall, subject to any agreement between the parties as to payment by stages, be the estimated total value of the work properly executed and up to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the unfixed materials and goods delivered to or date the valuation was made, less any payment (including advance payment) previously made paid under this Contract. PROVIDED THAT such certificate shall only include the value of the said unfixed materials and goods as and from such time as they are reasonably and properly and not prematurely delivered to or adjacent to the site and adequately protected against weather, damage, and deterioration. 28.5 – This clause shall not apply to any unfixed materials and goods which are supplied and delivered by the Nominated Suppliers for which payment shall be made for the full value of the unfixed materials and goods. 28.6 – Within a number of days as stated in Appendix (or if none stated then within thirty (30) days of the issue of any such Interim Certificate), the Government shall make a payment to the Contractor as follows: (a) where the Performance Bond is in the form of a Banker’s, Insurance, or Finance Company Guarantee, payment shall be made on the amount certified as due to the contractor in the said Interim Certificate; or (b) where the Performance Bond is in the form of a Performance Guarantee Sum; payment of the ninety percent (90%) on the amount certified as due to the contractor shall be made with the remaining ten percent (10%) being retained by the Government as a Performance Guarantee Sum. PROVIDED THAT when the sum retained is equivalent to five percent (5%) of the contract sum then in any subsequent Certificate, payment shall be made on the full amount certified as due to the Contractor. (ii) Clause 55 – EVENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF DEFAULT BY GOVERNMENT Default of Obligations S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (a) Events of Default If the Government without any reasonable cause fails to perform or fulfil any of its obligations which adversely affects the Works, then the Contractor may issue a notice specifying the default of the Government and requiring the Government to remedy the same within the period specified therein taking into account the nature of the remedy to be carried out by JKP Sdn Bhd or such other period as may be agreed by both Parties from the date of receipt of such notice. (b) Termination If JKP Sdn Bhd fails to remedy the default period specified in such notice issued under clause 55 (a) within the stipulated time therein, the Contractor shall have the right to forthwith terminate this Contract by giving written notice to the effect. (c) Consequences of Termination If this Contract is terminated under clause 55(b) (i) JKP Sdn Bhd shall pay to the Contractor – (a) the value of the Works carried out up to the date of termination; (b) the amounts payable in respect of any preliminary items so far as the work or service comprised therein has been carried out or performed and a proper proportion of any such items which have been partially carried out or performed; (c) the cost of materials or goods reasonably ordered for the Works which have been delivered to the contractor or of which the Contractor is legally liable to accept delivery (such materials or goods becoming the property of the Government upon such payment being made to the Contractor); and S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (d) a sum being the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the Contractor in so far as such expenditure has not been recovered by any other payments referred to in this sub-clause. (ii) For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties hereby agree that the Contractor shall not be entitled to any other form of losses including loss of profit, damages, claims, or whatsoever upon termination of this contract. (iii) Clause 56 – CERTIFICATE OF TERMINATION COSTS 56.1 - As soon as the arrangements for the completion of the Works made by the JKP Sdn Bhd enable the SO to make a reasonable accurate assessment of the ultimate cost of completing the Works following the termination of the Contractor’s employment and the engagement of other contractors or persons, and the amount of direct loss and/or damage caused to the Government due to the termination has been ascertained by the SO, then the SO may issue a certificate (hereinafter referred to as the “certificate of Termination Costs”) stating the completion Cost (herein defined) and the Final Contract Sum (hereinafter defined). 56.2 – The Completion Cost comprises the following sums, cost or expenditure: (a) the sums previously paid to the Contractor by JKP Sdn Bhd; (b) the sums paid or payable to other contractors or persons engaged to complete the Works; (c) any sums paid to sub-contractors or suppliers under clause 61 (d) any costs or expenditures incurred or to be incurred including On-Cost Charges incurred by JKP Sdn Bhd in completing the Works; and S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 (e) the amount of direct loss and/or damage caused to JKP Sdn Bhd due to the termination. 56.3 – The Final Contract Sum comprises of the following amounts or sums: (a) the amount which would have been payable under the Contract on the completion in accordance with the Contract, allowing any variations or other matters which would have resulted in an adjustment of the original Contract Sum; and (b) any other sums which JKP Sdn Bhd might be entitled under the terms of the Contract to deduct from the original Contract Sums, had the Contractor’s employment not been terminated. 56.4 The certification of Termination Costs shall state the difference between the Final Contract Sum and the Completion Cost. If the Final Contract Sum is less than the Completion Cost, the difference shall be the debt payable by the Contractor to the Government to the Contractor. 56.5 – The Certificate of Termination Costs shall be binding and conclusive on the Contractor as to the amount of such loss or damage specified therein. 56.6 - In the event the completion of the Works being undertaken departmentally, allowance shall be made, when ascertaining the amount to be certified as costs and expense incurred by the Government, for cost of supervision, interest, and depreciation on plant and all other usual overhead charges and profit as would be incurred if the works were completed by other contractors or persons. [35] However, the Adjudicator in this case, in his Adjudication Decision held that the most applicable clause for the appellant’s claim against the respondent is clause 36.6 of the Contract and allowed the claim based on S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 the said clause. In the Adjudication Decisions at paragraphs 100, and 101 this was said: “100. The respondent argued that the correct and crucial provision of the Contract is Clause 36.5 of the COC and that the Claimant has not invoking (sic) this provision in support of its claim. However, in my considered opinion, Clause 36.6 of COC are the one most applicable to the Claimant’s claim. Clause 36.6 of COC which provides as below: “36.6 Notwithstanding anything in clause 36.5, if the Contractor carries out any further test as required by the SO pursuant to clause 36.2 and the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials is not in accordance with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by the Contractor. But if the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials comply with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by JKP Sdn Bhd. (emphasis added).” 101. Clearly and certainly, in order to succeed the claim pursuant on the above clause, the burden is on the Claimant to show a cogent proof of whether the Claimant has received any instruction or direction by the Respondent or Respondent’s consultants under the Contract at the material time.” [36] Further, at paragraphs 104 and 105 of the Adjudication Decision, the Adjudicator states this: “104. As the Independent Consultants i.e. the Professional Engineer has certified and endorsed the building is safe and this would have meant that the Claimant has carried out the construction work are in accordance with the Contract. This is opposing to what allegation put forth by the Respondent that the construction S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 works carried out by the Claimant are not in accordance with the Contract and that had compromised the safety of the building. Therefore, pursuant to Clause 36.6 of the COC which further provides as below: “But if the result of such test shows the workmanship or materials comply with the provisions of the Contract, then the cost of such test shall be borne by the JKP Sdn Bhd.” …… 105. By foregoing reason and considering all the facts and circumstances available to me, I am hold (sic) to determine that the Claimant has proved, on the balance of probabilities, and that the Respondent shall pay the cost of the Independent Consultants which engaged by the Claimant in produce the relevant report as instructed by the respondent’s consultants. (emphasis added) [37] Reading the paragraphs of the Adjudication Decision alluded to above, it is undoubtedly that the Adjudicator had relied on clause 36.6 of the Contract in allowing the appellant’s claim. This clause was not relied upon by the appellant in the Payment Claim filed under section 5 to establish its claim, nor mentioned by the respondent in the Payment Response filed under section 6 of CIPAA. In addition, having perused the Adjudication decision, there is nowhere to show that the Adjudicator relied on clauses 28, 55, or 56 of the Contract which were the provisions relied upon by the appellant in its Payment Claim to establish its cause of action. [38] As the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to matters referred to the Adjudicator under sections 5 and 6, and the cause of action based on S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 clause 36.6 was not relied upon in the Payment Claim, the Adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the dispute based on clause 36.6 of the Contract. The cause of action under clause 36.6 was not the appellant’s case in the Payment Claim or the respondent rebuttal in the Payment Response. [39] In our neighbouring country, Singapore, the Adjudicator is also clothed with the same limited jurisdiction as provided under section 17(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed). In explaining the application of the said provision, Sundaresh Menon CJ in WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 said this: “46. This subsection sets out what an adjudicator is permitted to consider and expressly provides that he “shall only have regard to [those] matters” [40] Likewise in the present case, section 27(1) has expressly limited the Adjudicator to adjudicate only matters pursuant to sections 5 and 6, not any other matters which have been discussed earlier. [41] Moreover, both parties have not given written consent to extend the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters relying on the cause of action established in clause 36.6 of the Contract as required under section 27(2) of CIPAA. In my view, if the Adjudicator finds that the cause of action was established under a different clause of the Contract, as in the present S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 case, the matter should be brought to the attention of the parties and if agrees, written consent be issued under section 27(2) to clothe the Adjudicator with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters based on the cause of action under clause 36.6. [42] On this ground of want of jurisdiction alone, the Adjudication Decision cannot stand. The Adjudicator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction and ground to set aside the Adjudication Decision under section 15(d) of CIPAA which states: “15. Improperly Procured Adjudication Decision An aggrieved party may apply to the High Court to set aside an adjudication decision on one or more of the following grounds: a) The adjudication decision was improperly procured through fraud or bribery; b) There has been a denial of natural justice; c) The adjudicator has not acted independently or impartially; or d) The adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction.” (emphasis added) [43] The next issue before this Court is whether there was a denial of natural justice when parties in the present case were not given the right to be heard on the application of clause 36.6 which was the Adjudicator’s S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 basis for allowing the appellant’s claim. The denial of natural justice is also a ground to challenge the Adjudication Decision provided under section 15(b) of CIPAA. [44] The concept of natural justice is well settled that parties must be given the right to be heard before a decision is made. A judge should not decide on an issue which was not pleaded and it is not the duty of the court to create a cause of action under the guise of doing justice. This court in Pacific Forest Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor v Lin Wen-Chih & Anor [2009] 6 CLJ 430 reiterated this principle as follows: “[16] The court also decides a case after considering the evidence adduced by each party and documents produced by them. Neither party should be taken by surprise. Even in respect of law, whether it is the court at first instance or the appellate court, judges rely heavily on the submissions put forward by the respective counsel. A good counsel is one who produces authorities to support the statement of law he is relying upon. The authorities can be in the form of reported judgments, text books, or even published law articles. In fact, according to etiquette, he is supposed to even bring to the attention of the court authorities which favour his opponent’s case. Of course, in such an instance, he would then distinguish the facts of the case before the court to the case in the authority. It is therefore dangerous and totally unadvisable, for the court, on its own accord, to consider any point without reliance on any pleadings or submission by counsel appearing before them. If the learned judge thinks there are any points which are relevant to the case before him and which was not raised by either party, it is his duty to highlight that to the parties before him. He must then give an opportunity for both parties to further submit on that particular point. There have been instances where a judge may already form some opinion on certain issues, legal or otherwise, but S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 after hearing submissions and views expressed by a party, he may conclude differently. [17] The effect of a judge making a decision on an issue not based on the pleadings and without hearing the parties on that particular issue would be in breach of the latin maxim audi alteram partem, which literally means, to hear the other side, a basic principle of natural justice.” (emphasis added) [45] The same principle was acknowledged by this Court in Dato’ Tan Chin Woh v Dato’ Yalumallai V Muthusamy [2016] 8 CLJ 293 and further said this: “[21] It is thus clear that whenever the court proposes to consider a fresh issue which the court considers pertinent to the case before it, it should give the parties the right to make submissions on the proposed issue before arriving at its finding. This is fundamental in the adversarial system that we practice in this country.” (emphasis added) [46] Further, on the concept of natural justice, Tengku Maimun CJ in Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] 1 MLJ 750 at page 825 said this: [188] In simpler terms, natural justice which encapsulates the twin concepts of nemo judex in causa sua (the rule against bias) and audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), are integral features of a written constitution which protects S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 fundamental liberties. Both rights are equally important but for the purpose of this judgment, particular emphasis is given to the right to be heard. On that right, Bhagwati J observed in Maneka Gandhi that ‘the soul of natural justice is fair-play in action and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world’. (emphasis added) [47] Reverting to the present case, it is undisputed that parties were not given the opportunity to submit the cause of action under clause 36.6 of the Contract before the Adjudication decision was handed down. Besides the principle of the right to be heard, the submission by parties as highlighted in the Pacific Forest case, may persuade the judge or in the present case, the Adjudicator, to decide differently. The principle of natural justice includes allowing parties to present their case effectively. [48] In an old case, Semtex v Gladstone [1954] 2 All ER 206 at page 212, Finnemore J said this: “Natural justice requires that the appellant be given a full and adequate hearing, and opportunity to give evidence on behalf of himself if he so desires and to call such witnesses as he considers necessary for his case…Natural justice is not something which any one of us can define in our own terms. It is basic. (emphasis added) S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [49] In the circumstances, I find, the non-giving of the opportunity by the Adjudicator for the parties to submit or canvass the issue of cause of action under clause 36.6 before making the decision, is a denial of natural justice. [50] In the present case, the main question is whether the applicant’s cause of action established under any of the clauses in the Contract and pleaded in the Payment Claim are matters adjudicated by the Adjudicator as mandated under section 27(1) of CIPAA. The issue of strict rules of pleading in civil claims to be complied with does not arise and is misplaced as section 27(1) has underlined the limited jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to adjudicate matters referred to the Adjudicator under section 5, that is the Payment Claim and section 6, which is the Payment Response. The answer to this main question is in the negative. [51] Based on the analysis and views mentioned above, I find it unnecessary to answer the questions posed by the appellant for me to decide on this appeal. Conclusion [52] In the circumstances, both the appellant’s appeals are dismissed and the decisions of the Court of Appeal are affirmed. The appellant is to pay costs to the respondent in the sum of RM60,000.00 subject to S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 payment of the allocator. The Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak (CJSS) has read this judgment in the draft and has agreed to it. My learned sister Justice Mary Lim Thiam Suan is dissenting. Dated 8 January 2024 - sgd - (DATO’ NORDIN BIN HASSAN) Judge Federal Court of Malaysia Counsel: For the Appellant: Ong Yu Shin Ong (Lee Hooi Ying & Lim Wooi Ying with him) [Messrs. The Chambers of Yu Shin Ong] For the Respondent: Dato’ Seri Mahinder Singh Dulku (Dato’ Abdul Fareed bin Abdul Gafoor & Farah Nabilah binti Shaharuddin with him) [Messrs. Ezrilaw Firm] S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 S/N hXHtBfAXQk6ppx6TU9B36A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BK-B52NCvC-4-02/2022

PLAINTIF LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK DEFENDAN KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING

Application to intervene - O15 R6(2)(i) & (ii) Rules of Court 2012- the jurisdiction of the sessions court in dealing with immovable property - Section 69 & section 71 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1984- Disposal of case on point of law-O14A R1 Rules of Court 2012.

12/01/2024

Dr. AZROL BIN ABDULLAH

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0c38d88e-133f-4fca-add3-6cecc585d3f3&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN SEPANG DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022 ANTARA LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK (NO K/P: 460807-10-5469) …PLAINTIFF DAN KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING …DEFENDANT DAN TOH CHING KING SESSIONS COURT (SEPANG) Dr. Azrol Bin Abdullah CIVIL SUIT NO BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022 11 October 2023 Representation Sivaperumal a/l Sakitazan (Messrs. G. Ram. Rozeta & Associates) for Plaintiff: Mr Ganesh Perumal & Ms Amila Huda Ahmad (Ganesh & Co) for Applicant/ Proposed intervener GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A) INTRODUCTION [1] This case involves a dispute regarding the transfer of ownership over two parcels of land (the said lands) which were allegedly sold by the Menuntut sebagai waris bagi harta pusaka Lau Heng Guan @ Lan Heng Yuen simati melalui surat kuasa pentadbiran …APPLICANT/ PROPOSED INTERVENER P E N C E L A H Y A N G D I C A D 12/01/2024 00:06:04 BK-B52NCvC-4-02/2022 Kand. 65 S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 defendant before the Merdeka Day. At first blush, the overall facts of this case were interesting. The meandering facts of this case bid for the fullest comprehension of this court. [2] This judgment is prepared pursuant to an appeal filed by the proposed intervener (the applicant) to the High Court following the applicant’s dissatisfaction over my decision in dismissing the applicant’s application at Enclosure 32. [3] Enclosure 32 is an application filed by the applicant seeking leave from this court to intervene in the main action. There were three arguments raised by the applicant in his submission. Out of three, only one crucial argument was raised by the applicant that exposed the Achilles heel of Enclosure 32 which moved this court to dismiss Enclosure 32, i.e. the lack of jurisdiction of this court. [4] The applicant was right in saying that this court was prevented from dealing with this case by section 69 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1984 (SCA1984). Therefore, I dismissed the applicant’s application at Enclosure 32 for want of jurisdiction. B) BRIEF FACTS [5] I do not intend to delve into the merits of this case as I am restrained from doing so. However, it would be important for me to briefly narrate the sequence of events that brought Enclosure 32 before this court. [6] The plaintiff in this case claimed that he was the beneficiary to a deceased Lau Heng Guan who owned the said lands located in the S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 district of Sepang namely Lot 478 and Lot 369 which were purchased by Lau Heng Guan from the defendant through an oral agreement. Lau Heng Guan was the plaintiff’s father. [7] The plaintiff asserted that Lau Heng Guan and himself had been paying the quit rent for the said lands since 1950. The plaintiff supported his claim by further stating that when Lot 369 was acquired by Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), the compensation was paid to him directly in the sum of RM17,783.00. The said compensation payment proves that Lau Heng Guan was the rightful owner of Lot 369. [8] According to the plaintiff, the transfer of title of the said lands was unable to be perfected because the defendant could not be located. The plaintiff sought from this court: i) A declaration that the plaintiff’s father was the legal owner of the said lands; ii) A specific performance order for the perfection of the transfer of the said lands to the plaintiff’s deceased father; iii) The plaintiff being the administrator is given the authority to execute any transfer regarding the said lands to the deceased’s father; iv) An order to the Land Administrator to issue new land grants over the said lands; and v) The plaintiff is permitted to apply new grant. [9] On 10.5.2022, the plaintiff filed another application in this court (Enclosure 19) applying for leave from this court to enter judgment in default against the defendant. Enclosure 19 was heard before a S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 previous judge who handled this case on 11.5.2022. The learned judge gave an order in terms for Enclosure 19 favouring the plaintiff. Thus, judgment in default was recorded against the defendant. [10] I took over this case only in late 2022 and this case was called for the first time before me on 7.12.2022. The plaintiff filed another application at Enclosure 23 requesting leave from this court to allow an amendment to the plaintiff’s name from Kan Kwok Ping to Kim Kwok Ping. I allowed an order in terms for Enclosure 23 on 31.3.2022. [11] Subsequently, the applicant filed Enclosure 32 to intervene on 18.4.2023 requesting this court to grant leave: i) To intervene as one of the parties in this case; ii) To permit the applicant to file his defence and other relevant interlocutory applications; and iii) Costs and other reliefs. [12] The applicant gave the following reasons in support of enclosure 32: i) The applicant has beneficial and legal rights over the said lands; ii) The court’s decision and/or order will affect the applicant’s interest and rights over the deceased’s estate; iii) The judgment in default entered on 11 May 2022 was irregular and illegal; and iv) The applicant’s presence in this suit is important to ensure that all of the evidence can be heard and dealt with fairly. [13] Enclosure 32 was supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant himself. The applicant’s affidavit in support averred that he was the administrator of his late father (applicant’s father). S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [14] The applicant’s affidavit in support affirmed that the applicant’s father and the defendant had been neighbours since 1927. The applicant’s father had purchased the said lands from the defendant for the sum of 750 Straits Settlement Dollars. [15] The applicant also averred in his affidavit that the defendant had issued a letter of attorney to the applicant’s father to manage the said lands before the defendant’s departure to his homeland in China. The applicant alleged that the letter of attorney gave full authority to the applicant’s father to deal with all matters connected to the said lands. [16] I ordered the plaintiff and the applicant to file their written submissions for Enclosure 32. It would be worth to recite the material parts of the parties’ submissions in the succeeding paragraphs. C) The Applicant’s Submission [17] The applicant’s submission was anchored to three issues namely: i) Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the lands in dispute? ii) Whether the applicant or the proposed Intervener have an interest directly related to the subject matter of the action in this suit? iii) Whether this court functus officio? i) Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the lands in dispute? S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [18] The applicant submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the said lands due to the restriction of the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction imposed by sections 65, 69, 71 and 71 of SCA1984. Section 69 of the SCA1984 excluded the Sessions Court jurisdiction from dealing with actions, suits or proceedings of a civil nature relating to immovable property unless consent by parties is obtained. The applicant cited several cases to support this point (see Peh Wee Lee & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik negeri Sembilan & Ors [2018] 5 CLJ 681, All Best Resources Sdn Bhd v Wong Yoke Lu [2015] MLJU 991, United Highlands Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Endah Sari Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1300). The applicant also submitted that the applicant never consented to this matter to be brought before the Sessions Court. ii) Whether the applicant/proposed Intervener have an interest directly related to the subject matter of the action in this suit? [19] The applicant submitted that he possessed the legal and beneficial ownership over the said lands following the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s Order dated 14.07.2022 vide Originating Summons: WA- 24NCvC-1276-07/2021 and Letter of Administration De Bonis Non. Whereas the plaintiff had nothing to produce to prove his ownership over the said lands. [20] The applicant argued that he had fulfilled all of the legal requirements set out by the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52 whereby the applicant will be directly affected by the outcome of the suit if he is not allowed to intervene and unable to set aside the judgment in default. Ultimately the applicant will lose S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the chance to recover the said lands if the said lands are transferred to a third party. iii) Whether this court functus officio? [21] The applicant contended that this court was not functus officio from hearing and allowing the applicant’s application to intervene because this case had not been heard on its merits. The judgment of default obtained by the plaintiff was also unenforceable due to this court’s lack of jurisdiction. [22] The applicant supported his argument based on the decision of the Federal Court in Dr. Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj v Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 5 MLJ 185; wherein it was held that any court orders that were null and void could be set aside through an intervener application even if the main proceeding had ended. D) The Plaintiff’s Submission [23] According to the plaintiff, an action was filed at the High Court vide case number WA-22NCvC-47-02/2023 to set aside the aforementioned High Court order dated 14.7.2022 (WA-24NCvC- 1276-07/2021) on the ground that the said order was fraudulently obtained by the applicant. However, the plaintiff’s action was transferred to the Shah Alam High Court because the Kuala Lumpur High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with lands located in Selangor. [24] The plaintiff averred that the power of attorney produced by the applicant had been forged and all of the facts submitted by the S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 applicant in this case were concocted lies. The document exhibited at TCK-8 also did not bear any weight because it was written in Chinese characters without any translations. [25] Plaintiff repeatedly submitted that the applicant’s application was made without merit and mala fide because the applicant had no legal interest in the said lands. The plaintiff further emphasised that the Sepang Land Administrator had awarded the plaintiff with compensation in the sum of RM17,783.00 in consideration for the TNB Electric Supply Project on Lot 369. However, the compensation remained unpaid pending the transfer of title. [26] The plaintiff submitted that the said lands were never part of the Toh Bu Yong’s property. Exhibit TCK11 (Originating summons NA-24 NCvC-190-08/2017) produced in the applicant’s affidavit proves that the said lands were not listed as part of Toh Bu Yong’s estate when the applicant was appointed as the sole administrator for Toh Bu Yong’s estate. E) Court’s Findings [27] My upsum of Enclosure 32 is this, the applicant wanted to intervene because according to the applicant, the said lands belong to the applicant’s deceased father. Conversely, the plaintiff argued that the applicant had no interest in the said lands because the said lands belonged to the plaintiff’s deceased father. Clearly, both parties had opposed versions on the ownership of the said lands. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [28] The applicant merely cited Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RHC2012) in general terms but did not specify the exact limb of Order 15 Rule 6 of RHC2012 that enabled the applicant to intervene. [29] Presumably, the applicant’s application should fall squarely under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(i) and (ii) of the RHC2012. For ease of reference, the said Order 15 Rule 16(2)(i) and (ii) RHC2012 is reproduced below: 6. (1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter. (2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application— (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely— (i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or (ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter. (3) An application by any person for an order under paragraph (2) adding him as a party shall, except with the leave of the Court, be supported by an affidavit showing his interest in the matters in dispute in the cause or S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 matter or, as the case may be, the question or issue to be determined as between him and any party to the cause or matter. (4) A person shall not be added as a plaintiff without his consent signified in writing or in such other manner as may be authorized. [30] The wording of Order 15 Rule 6 RHC2012 above is plain and clear that the court has the discretion to order any person to be added as a party in a proceeding under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(i) RHC2012 if its presence is necessary to ensure the dispute be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated or under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(ii) RHC2012 if there exists a question or issue arising out of or connected with any relief or remedy claimed. [31] It would be apposite for me to briefly state here that the application of Order 15 Rule 6 RHC2012 and its test to succeed have been discussed in a plethora of cases and among others is the Supreme Court case of Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd v Jamaludin bin Dato Mohd Jarjis [1991] 2 MLJ 27; [1991] 2 CLJ 862. In this case, it was held as follows: [1](a) One of the principal objects of O 15 r 6 of RHC 1980, which replaced O 16 r 11 of Rules of Supreme Court 1967, is to enable the Court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the action without giving this person an opportunity of being heard. [2] As a result of Gurtner v Circuit, a person who is not a party is allowed to intervene if the intervener is directly affected not only in his legal rights (as provided for under O 15 r 6 RHC 1980) but in his pocket. (Emphasis added.) [32] The applicant was correct in referring this court to the decision of the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 2 MLJ 52 on the applicable test to intervene. In Pegang Mining, Lord Diplock explained whether a person can be added as a party in the following words: … one of the principal objects of the rule is to enable the court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the action without his being given an opportunity of being heard… A better way of expressing the test is: will his rights against or liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in the action? (Emphasis added.) [33] Against the above legal setting, before this court can entertain any application to intervene, overall facts relating to the subject matter must be dealt with by the court to determine whether the proposed intervener will be affected by the legal action. To my mind, to deal with the related facts, this court must be vested with the jurisdiction to do so. [34] Unfortunately, the subject matter of this case involves two parcels of land which is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate. In this respect, I refer to section 69 of the SCA1984 which states: Section 69. Exceptions to jurisdiction. Sessions Courts shall have no jurisdiction in actions, suits or proceedings of a civil nature— (a) relating to immovable property except as provided in sections 70 and 71; [35] The restriction on the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction from dealing with immovable property had been reemphasised by the Court of Appeal in Peh Wee Lee & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Sembilan & Ors [2018] 5 MLJ 269, wherein the Court of Appeal ruled: [17] …the sessions court is generally not clothed with the necessary jurisdiction to deal with immovable property/land. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [36] On the contrary, section 71 of the SCA1984 gives an exception to the Sessions Court to deal with immovable property if all of the parties interested provide their consent. section 71 of the SCA1984 states: Section 71. Jurisdiction to adjudicate on title to immovable property with consent of parties. If in any action or suit before a Sessions Court, the title to any immovable property is disputed, or the question of the ownership thereof arises, the Court may adjudicate thereon if all parties interested consent; but, if they do not all consent, the Sessions Court Judge shall apply to the High Court to transfer the action or suit to itself. [37] Guidance on the operation of section 71 of the SCA1984 could be found in the decided cases. In All Best Resources Sdn Bhd v Wong Yoke Lu [2015] MLJU 991, the High Court ruled: This statutory provision allows the Sessions Court to adjudicate even when there is dispute on the title to any immovable property if consented to by the parties. If there is no such consent, the Sessions Court judge shall apply to transfer the suit to the High Court. [38] In the same vein, the High Court in United Highlands Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Endah Sari Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1300 held as follows: [25] In my view, the requirement of consent under section 71 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 can be satisfied by showing a Defendant has expressly in writing or impliedly by conduct consent to the Sessions Court to adjudicate on title to immovable property. [39] I prompted the applicant and the plaintiff on 18 July 2023 about the restriction imposed by section 60 of the SCA1984. Therefore, the immediate legal conundrum that needs to be resolved first before anything else is whether this court is prevented by section 60 of the SCA1984 from dealing with the subject matter of this case. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [40] In this respect, I invoked Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 which permits this court to decide on questions of law that could dispose of the entire issue at hand. Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 states: Order 14A. Disposal of case on point of law Determination of questions of law or construction (O. 14A, r. 1) 1. (1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that— (a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and (b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein. (2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just. (3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question. [41] I found comfort in applying Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 based on the decision of the High Court in Krishnan Rajan A/L N Krishnan V Bank Negara Malaysia [2003] 1 MLJ 149 wherein Abdul Malik Ishak J. (as he then was) ruled: Next, it would be the case of Thanaraj a/l Manikam & Ors v Lower Perak Tamil Co-operative Society [1997] 4 MLJ 82, a decision of Kang Hwee Gee J, where the learned judge said at pp 88-89 of the report: Ideally, the procedure for the defendant to adopt was to plead the issue in their statement of defence under O 18 r 11 of the RHC 1980. He could then follow up by an application under O 33 r 2 and if it appears to the court that the decision on the preliminary issue substantially disposes of the case or matter or renders the trial of the cause or matter unnecessary, the court may then act under O 33 r 5 to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [42] The decision in Krishnan Rajan gives the court the discretion to determine any questions that could substantially dispose of the whole cause of action based on Order 33 Rule 5 Rules of the High Court 1980. In our present context, a similar provision is Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012. [43] Following the mandatory requirement imposed by Order 14A Rule 1(3) RHC2012, I ordered both parties on 18 July 2023 to submit in their respective written submissions whether this court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter, particularly the applicant’s application. [44] The plaintiff did not offer any submission on the jurisdiction of this court. Be that as it may. However, I would be remiss in not mentioning my appreciation to the applicant’s counsel for being obliged to put forth a submission on the jurisdiction of this court to deal with the subject matter herein. [45] I found myself agreeable with the submission by the applicant’s counsel that, this court had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of this case based on section 69 of the SCA1984. Therefore, the aforementioned legal question is hereby answered in the affirmative. [46] This court also did not obtain any consent from all of the parties to activate the operation of section 71 of the SCA1984. I take cognisant about the mandatory duty of this court under section 71 of the SCA1984 to transfer this case to the High Court in the absence of consent by all of the parties. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so since the plaintiff had already obtained a judgment in default against S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 the defendant on 11 May 2022 before a previous judge. It would not be farfetched for me to say that this case has been technically disposed of. To date, there is no application by the defendant to set aside the judgment in default entered by the plaintiff. [47] In the absence of jurisdiction to deal with immovable property, this court was unable to deal with all matters that are related to it including the applicant’s application. I was inhibited from dealing with the merits of the facts affirmed in all of the affidavits presented by the applicant and the plaintiffs concerning Enclosure 32. It is my considered observation that the principles enunciated in Dr Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj v Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 5 MLJ 185 would certainly benefit the applicant only if this court had the jurisdiction to deal with the said lands. [48] The reasons adumbrated above would indeed dishearten the applicant, but this court had no other option but to dismiss Enclosure 32 with no order to costs due to want of jurisdiction. ………………Sgd……………….. Dr Azrol Bin Abdullah Judge Sessions Court Sepang S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BK-B52NCvC-4-02/2022

PLAINTIF LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK DEFENDAN KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING

Application to intervene - O15 R6(2)(i) & (ii) Rules of Court 2012- the jurisdiction of the sessions court in dealing with immovable property - Section 69 & section 71 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1984- Disposal of case on point of law-O14A R1 Rules of Court 2012.

12/01/2024

Dr. AZROL BIN ABDULLAH

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0c38d88e-133f-4fca-add3-6cecc585d3f3&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN SEPANG DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022 ANTARA LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK (NO K/P: 460807-10-5469) …PLAINTIFF DAN KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING …DEFENDANT DAN TOH CHING KING SESSIONS COURT (SEPANG) Dr. Azrol Bin Abdullah CIVIL SUIT NO BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022 11 October 2023 Representation Sivaperumal a/l Sakitazan (Messrs. G. Ram. Rozeta & Associates) for Plaintiff: Mr Ganesh Perumal & Ms Amila Huda Ahmad (Ganesh & Co) for Applicant/ Proposed intervener GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A) INTRODUCTION [1] This case involves a dispute regarding the transfer of ownership over two parcels of land (the said lands) which were allegedly sold by the Menuntut sebagai waris bagi harta pusaka Lau Heng Guan @ Lan Heng Yuen simati melalui surat kuasa pentadbiran …APPLICANT/ PROPOSED INTERVENER P E N C E L A H Y A N G D I C A D 12/01/2024 00:06:04 BK-B52NCvC-4-02/2022 Kand. 65 S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 defendant before the Merdeka Day. At first blush, the overall facts of this case were interesting. The meandering facts of this case bid for the fullest comprehension of this court. [2] This judgment is prepared pursuant to an appeal filed by the proposed intervener (the applicant) to the High Court following the applicant’s dissatisfaction over my decision in dismissing the applicant’s application at Enclosure 32. [3] Enclosure 32 is an application filed by the applicant seeking leave from this court to intervene in the main action. There were three arguments raised by the applicant in his submission. Out of three, only one crucial argument was raised by the applicant that exposed the Achilles heel of Enclosure 32 which moved this court to dismiss Enclosure 32, i.e. the lack of jurisdiction of this court. [4] The applicant was right in saying that this court was prevented from dealing with this case by section 69 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1984 (SCA1984). Therefore, I dismissed the applicant’s application at Enclosure 32 for want of jurisdiction. B) BRIEF FACTS [5] I do not intend to delve into the merits of this case as I am restrained from doing so. However, it would be important for me to briefly narrate the sequence of events that brought Enclosure 32 before this court. [6] The plaintiff in this case claimed that he was the beneficiary to a deceased Lau Heng Guan who owned the said lands located in the S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 district of Sepang namely Lot 478 and Lot 369 which were purchased by Lau Heng Guan from the defendant through an oral agreement. Lau Heng Guan was the plaintiff’s father. [7] The plaintiff asserted that Lau Heng Guan and himself had been paying the quit rent for the said lands since 1950. The plaintiff supported his claim by further stating that when Lot 369 was acquired by Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), the compensation was paid to him directly in the sum of RM17,783.00. The said compensation payment proves that Lau Heng Guan was the rightful owner of Lot 369. [8] According to the plaintiff, the transfer of title of the said lands was unable to be perfected because the defendant could not be located. The plaintiff sought from this court: i) A declaration that the plaintiff’s father was the legal owner of the said lands; ii) A specific performance order for the perfection of the transfer of the said lands to the plaintiff’s deceased father; iii) The plaintiff being the administrator is given the authority to execute any transfer regarding the said lands to the deceased’s father; iv) An order to the Land Administrator to issue new land grants over the said lands; and v) The plaintiff is permitted to apply new grant. [9] On 10.5.2022, the plaintiff filed another application in this court (Enclosure 19) applying for leave from this court to enter judgment in default against the defendant. Enclosure 19 was heard before a S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 previous judge who handled this case on 11.5.2022. The learned judge gave an order in terms for Enclosure 19 favouring the plaintiff. Thus, judgment in default was recorded against the defendant. [10] I took over this case only in late 2022 and this case was called for the first time before me on 7.12.2022. The plaintiff filed another application at Enclosure 23 requesting leave from this court to allow an amendment to the plaintiff’s name from Kan Kwok Ping to Kim Kwok Ping. I allowed an order in terms for Enclosure 23 on 31.3.2022. [11] Subsequently, the applicant filed Enclosure 32 to intervene on 18.4.2023 requesting this court to grant leave: i) To intervene as one of the parties in this case; ii) To permit the applicant to file his defence and other relevant interlocutory applications; and iii) Costs and other reliefs. [12] The applicant gave the following reasons in support of enclosure 32: i) The applicant has beneficial and legal rights over the said lands; ii) The court’s decision and/or order will affect the applicant’s interest and rights over the deceased’s estate; iii) The judgment in default entered on 11 May 2022 was irregular and illegal; and iv) The applicant’s presence in this suit is important to ensure that all of the evidence can be heard and dealt with fairly. [13] Enclosure 32 was supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant himself. The applicant’s affidavit in support averred that he was the administrator of his late father (applicant’s father). S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [14] The applicant’s affidavit in support affirmed that the applicant’s father and the defendant had been neighbours since 1927. The applicant’s father had purchased the said lands from the defendant for the sum of 750 Straits Settlement Dollars. [15] The applicant also averred in his affidavit that the defendant had issued a letter of attorney to the applicant’s father to manage the said lands before the defendant’s departure to his homeland in China. The applicant alleged that the letter of attorney gave full authority to the applicant’s father to deal with all matters connected to the said lands. [16] I ordered the plaintiff and the applicant to file their written submissions for Enclosure 32. It would be worth to recite the material parts of the parties’ submissions in the succeeding paragraphs. C) The Applicant’s Submission [17] The applicant’s submission was anchored to three issues namely: i) Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the lands in dispute? ii) Whether the applicant or the proposed Intervener have an interest directly related to the subject matter of the action in this suit? iii) Whether this court functus officio? i) Whether this court has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the lands in dispute? S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [18] The applicant submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership of the said lands due to the restriction of the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction imposed by sections 65, 69, 71 and 71 of SCA1984. Section 69 of the SCA1984 excluded the Sessions Court jurisdiction from dealing with actions, suits or proceedings of a civil nature relating to immovable property unless consent by parties is obtained. The applicant cited several cases to support this point (see Peh Wee Lee & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik negeri Sembilan & Ors [2018] 5 CLJ 681, All Best Resources Sdn Bhd v Wong Yoke Lu [2015] MLJU 991, United Highlands Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Endah Sari Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1300). The applicant also submitted that the applicant never consented to this matter to be brought before the Sessions Court. ii) Whether the applicant/proposed Intervener have an interest directly related to the subject matter of the action in this suit? [19] The applicant submitted that he possessed the legal and beneficial ownership over the said lands following the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s Order dated 14.07.2022 vide Originating Summons: WA- 24NCvC-1276-07/2021 and Letter of Administration De Bonis Non. Whereas the plaintiff had nothing to produce to prove his ownership over the said lands. [20] The applicant argued that he had fulfilled all of the legal requirements set out by the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52 whereby the applicant will be directly affected by the outcome of the suit if he is not allowed to intervene and unable to set aside the judgment in default. Ultimately the applicant will lose S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the chance to recover the said lands if the said lands are transferred to a third party. iii) Whether this court functus officio? [21] The applicant contended that this court was not functus officio from hearing and allowing the applicant’s application to intervene because this case had not been heard on its merits. The judgment of default obtained by the plaintiff was also unenforceable due to this court’s lack of jurisdiction. [22] The applicant supported his argument based on the decision of the Federal Court in Dr. Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj v Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 5 MLJ 185; wherein it was held that any court orders that were null and void could be set aside through an intervener application even if the main proceeding had ended. D) The Plaintiff’s Submission [23] According to the plaintiff, an action was filed at the High Court vide case number WA-22NCvC-47-02/2023 to set aside the aforementioned High Court order dated 14.7.2022 (WA-24NCvC- 1276-07/2021) on the ground that the said order was fraudulently obtained by the applicant. However, the plaintiff’s action was transferred to the Shah Alam High Court because the Kuala Lumpur High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with lands located in Selangor. [24] The plaintiff averred that the power of attorney produced by the applicant had been forged and all of the facts submitted by the S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 applicant in this case were concocted lies. The document exhibited at TCK-8 also did not bear any weight because it was written in Chinese characters without any translations. [25] Plaintiff repeatedly submitted that the applicant’s application was made without merit and mala fide because the applicant had no legal interest in the said lands. The plaintiff further emphasised that the Sepang Land Administrator had awarded the plaintiff with compensation in the sum of RM17,783.00 in consideration for the TNB Electric Supply Project on Lot 369. However, the compensation remained unpaid pending the transfer of title. [26] The plaintiff submitted that the said lands were never part of the Toh Bu Yong’s property. Exhibit TCK11 (Originating summons NA-24 NCvC-190-08/2017) produced in the applicant’s affidavit proves that the said lands were not listed as part of Toh Bu Yong’s estate when the applicant was appointed as the sole administrator for Toh Bu Yong’s estate. E) Court’s Findings [27] My upsum of Enclosure 32 is this, the applicant wanted to intervene because according to the applicant, the said lands belong to the applicant’s deceased father. Conversely, the plaintiff argued that the applicant had no interest in the said lands because the said lands belonged to the plaintiff’s deceased father. Clearly, both parties had opposed versions on the ownership of the said lands. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [28] The applicant merely cited Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RHC2012) in general terms but did not specify the exact limb of Order 15 Rule 6 of RHC2012 that enabled the applicant to intervene. [29] Presumably, the applicant’s application should fall squarely under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(i) and (ii) of the RHC2012. For ease of reference, the said Order 15 Rule 16(2)(i) and (ii) RHC2012 is reproduced below: 6. (1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter. (2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application— (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely— (i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or (ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter. (3) An application by any person for an order under paragraph (2) adding him as a party shall, except with the leave of the Court, be supported by an affidavit showing his interest in the matters in dispute in the cause or S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 matter or, as the case may be, the question or issue to be determined as between him and any party to the cause or matter. (4) A person shall not be added as a plaintiff without his consent signified in writing or in such other manner as may be authorized. [30] The wording of Order 15 Rule 6 RHC2012 above is plain and clear that the court has the discretion to order any person to be added as a party in a proceeding under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(i) RHC2012 if its presence is necessary to ensure the dispute be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated or under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(ii) RHC2012 if there exists a question or issue arising out of or connected with any relief or remedy claimed. [31] It would be apposite for me to briefly state here that the application of Order 15 Rule 6 RHC2012 and its test to succeed have been discussed in a plethora of cases and among others is the Supreme Court case of Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd v Jamaludin bin Dato Mohd Jarjis [1991] 2 MLJ 27; [1991] 2 CLJ 862. In this case, it was held as follows: [1](a) One of the principal objects of O 15 r 6 of RHC 1980, which replaced O 16 r 11 of Rules of Supreme Court 1967, is to enable the Court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the action without giving this person an opportunity of being heard. [2] As a result of Gurtner v Circuit, a person who is not a party is allowed to intervene if the intervener is directly affected not only in his legal rights (as provided for under O 15 r 6 RHC 1980) but in his pocket. (Emphasis added.) [32] The applicant was correct in referring this court to the decision of the Privy Council in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 2 MLJ 52 on the applicable test to intervene. In Pegang Mining, Lord Diplock explained whether a person can be added as a party in the following words: … one of the principal objects of the rule is to enable the court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment by proceeding to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute in the action without his being given an opportunity of being heard… A better way of expressing the test is: will his rights against or liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in the action? (Emphasis added.) [33] Against the above legal setting, before this court can entertain any application to intervene, overall facts relating to the subject matter must be dealt with by the court to determine whether the proposed intervener will be affected by the legal action. To my mind, to deal with the related facts, this court must be vested with the jurisdiction to do so. [34] Unfortunately, the subject matter of this case involves two parcels of land which is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate. In this respect, I refer to section 69 of the SCA1984 which states: Section 69. Exceptions to jurisdiction. Sessions Courts shall have no jurisdiction in actions, suits or proceedings of a civil nature— (a) relating to immovable property except as provided in sections 70 and 71; [35] The restriction on the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction from dealing with immovable property had been reemphasised by the Court of Appeal in Peh Wee Lee & Anor v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Sembilan & Ors [2018] 5 MLJ 269, wherein the Court of Appeal ruled: [17] …the sessions court is generally not clothed with the necessary jurisdiction to deal with immovable property/land. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [36] On the contrary, section 71 of the SCA1984 gives an exception to the Sessions Court to deal with immovable property if all of the parties interested provide their consent. section 71 of the SCA1984 states: Section 71. Jurisdiction to adjudicate on title to immovable property with consent of parties. If in any action or suit before a Sessions Court, the title to any immovable property is disputed, or the question of the ownership thereof arises, the Court may adjudicate thereon if all parties interested consent; but, if they do not all consent, the Sessions Court Judge shall apply to the High Court to transfer the action or suit to itself. [37] Guidance on the operation of section 71 of the SCA1984 could be found in the decided cases. In All Best Resources Sdn Bhd v Wong Yoke Lu [2015] MLJU 991, the High Court ruled: This statutory provision allows the Sessions Court to adjudicate even when there is dispute on the title to any immovable property if consented to by the parties. If there is no such consent, the Sessions Court judge shall apply to transfer the suit to the High Court. [38] In the same vein, the High Court in United Highlands Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Endah Sari Sdn Bhd [2022] MLJU 1300 held as follows: [25] In my view, the requirement of consent under section 71 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 can be satisfied by showing a Defendant has expressly in writing or impliedly by conduct consent to the Sessions Court to adjudicate on title to immovable property. [39] I prompted the applicant and the plaintiff on 18 July 2023 about the restriction imposed by section 60 of the SCA1984. Therefore, the immediate legal conundrum that needs to be resolved first before anything else is whether this court is prevented by section 60 of the SCA1984 from dealing with the subject matter of this case. S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [40] In this respect, I invoked Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 which permits this court to decide on questions of law that could dispose of the entire issue at hand. Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 states: Order 14A. Disposal of case on point of law Determination of questions of law or construction (O. 14A, r. 1) 1. (1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that— (a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and (b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein. (2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just. (3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question. [41] I found comfort in applying Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012 based on the decision of the High Court in Krishnan Rajan A/L N Krishnan V Bank Negara Malaysia [2003] 1 MLJ 149 wherein Abdul Malik Ishak J. (as he then was) ruled: Next, it would be the case of Thanaraj a/l Manikam & Ors v Lower Perak Tamil Co-operative Society [1997] 4 MLJ 82, a decision of Kang Hwee Gee J, where the learned judge said at pp 88-89 of the report: Ideally, the procedure for the defendant to adopt was to plead the issue in their statement of defence under O 18 r 11 of the RHC 1980. He could then follow up by an application under O 33 r 2 and if it appears to the court that the decision on the preliminary issue substantially disposes of the case or matter or renders the trial of the cause or matter unnecessary, the court may then act under O 33 r 5 to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [42] The decision in Krishnan Rajan gives the court the discretion to determine any questions that could substantially dispose of the whole cause of action based on Order 33 Rule 5 Rules of the High Court 1980. In our present context, a similar provision is Order 14A Rule 1(1)(b) RHC2012. [43] Following the mandatory requirement imposed by Order 14A Rule 1(3) RHC2012, I ordered both parties on 18 July 2023 to submit in their respective written submissions whether this court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter, particularly the applicant’s application. [44] The plaintiff did not offer any submission on the jurisdiction of this court. Be that as it may. However, I would be remiss in not mentioning my appreciation to the applicant’s counsel for being obliged to put forth a submission on the jurisdiction of this court to deal with the subject matter herein. [45] I found myself agreeable with the submission by the applicant’s counsel that, this court had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of this case based on section 69 of the SCA1984. Therefore, the aforementioned legal question is hereby answered in the affirmative. [46] This court also did not obtain any consent from all of the parties to activate the operation of section 71 of the SCA1984. I take cognisant about the mandatory duty of this court under section 71 of the SCA1984 to transfer this case to the High Court in the absence of consent by all of the parties. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so since the plaintiff had already obtained a judgment in default against S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 the defendant on 11 May 2022 before a previous judge. It would not be farfetched for me to say that this case has been technically disposed of. To date, there is no application by the defendant to set aside the judgment in default entered by the plaintiff. [47] In the absence of jurisdiction to deal with immovable property, this court was unable to deal with all matters that are related to it including the applicant’s application. I was inhibited from dealing with the merits of the facts affirmed in all of the affidavits presented by the applicant and the plaintiffs concerning Enclosure 32. It is my considered observation that the principles enunciated in Dr Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj v Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor [2020] 5 MLJ 185 would certainly benefit the applicant only if this court had the jurisdiction to deal with the said lands. [48] The reasons adumbrated above would indeed dishearten the applicant, but this court had no other option but to dismiss Enclosure 32 with no order to costs due to want of jurisdiction. ………………Sgd……………….. Dr Azrol Bin Abdullah Judge Sessions Court Sepang S/N jtg4DD8Tykt02zsxYXT8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCvC-15-01/2022

PLAINTIF SPECIFIC DIMENSION SDN.BHD. DEFENDAN M.E.I Project Engineers Sdn.Bhd.

Mahkamah ini sedar bahawa sekiranya terdapat percanggahan berkaitan keterangan dan terdapat keterangan dokumentar yang jelas, maka mahkamah akan menerima keterangan dokumetar tersebut sebagai keterangan sokongan.Dalam kes HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BHD V WOO THIN CHOY [2015] 9 CLJ 706, Mahkamah Rayuan telah antara Iain memutuskan bahawa:“[40] We agreed with counsel for the plaintiff that the learned trial judge was clearly wrong in the circumstances, to ignore the weight of the evidence supported by documents (not disputed by the defendant) which had been adduced by the plaintiff and as opposed to that, to just accept the bare oral testimony of the defendant that he was authorised by Vincent Lye to act for BPH Lashedid”

12/01/2024

YA Tuan Azizan bin Md. Arshad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=cbed7c92-6f9c-4fb8-b5ad-f3ea06d3f26d&Inline=true

12/01/2024 17:20:32 PA-22NCvC-15-01/2022 Kand. 108 S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N knzty5xvuE1rfPqBtPybQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1>A—22ucvc—15—u1/2022 l<and. 108 ,2/01,2014 , IN THE HIGH couRT oF NIALAVSIA IN PULAU PINANG IN THE STATE or PULAU PINANG MALAYSIA wRIT oF SUMMONS N0:PA-ZINCVC-lS—0II1D2Z BETWEEN SPECIFIC DIMENSION SUN. EHD. (Company No.: 304294.41) PLAINTIF AND u.E.I. PROJECT ENGINEERS sum. HHD. (CarIIpIIIy No.: I1:4u4II) ...DEFENDAN (Hum lngemerwim] IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA IN PULAU PINANG IN THE STATE OF PULAU PINANG MALAYSIA WRIT OF suwaous N0:FA-22NCVC~154-DB/2021 BETWEEN SPECIFIC DIMENSION SDNA BHD. (company No.: M14294-D) PLAINYIF AND sw knzwfinwzw mama 1 Nat! Sum M... M“ be used M mm I. nflmrufllv mm; “Mm. VII muwa VWLII M.E PROJECT ENGINEERS SDN. EHD. (Company No.: I13484—l|) DEFENDAN BAMAGIAII I Alum Penghnklmln [PA.2zNcvc-I5—MI2n22] [11 Im merupakin rayuan (Emndap Kapulusan Mahkamah nu yatelah permcman penuh Tunmmn Respoden (Plairml) Ierhadap Perayu lDelend:rI) lelan dlbenarkan dengan hos pads 14 12 ms Pnhak Periyu telah memlallkan rayuan Iemadap kesemruhin keautusan Iersebul [1] K25 In: lelah dldengar seremak dengan kes No PA—22Ncvc-15+ as/2021 kerana mehhaukan puhalvplhak yang sama letapl avas ;um|nn Iunmlln yang bemeza yang mana pad: mmanya kes Am anauxan an Mahklmah Sesyen kerana mmlahlunnnan nanya RM5110, ooo Manakala kas no PA—22NCVC»I54(J9I2021 dwanxan an Mahkamah Tmggn kevana nmmvan m IhlhlRM1 juu. [3] Perbicaraan kes um Isiah benangsuna salami 2 han dengan searing saksw danpada Pmak Respunden din 2 crang saksv daripada Perayu PIhak~pihak aalam Penghakxmin ml akan dlrmuk sebagavmana kedudukan merek: .11 Mahkimah Tinggi my Mankamah um sedav bahawi samranya Xsvdapat pemnggahan berkanan keleranvan dan lerdapal kmemngan dakumemlr yang ;aIas, maka mahkamih akan menanma kelarangan dakumetar larsebut sebagaw kelerangan sakongan mlam kn: Mo HUP cousmucnau COMFANV Bun V woo THIN cnov [2015] D CLJ 703. Mlhkaman Rnyuln lelah mar. lam memutuskan bahlwn “[40] we 39...: wrm wumx lurmv mawml! mm the leamzd mauudqe ms um, wrung m an cwwmihnzu‘ m gnu. the wmgm 01 me mam Iuppoflnd by docum-nil mm dmpubad by IM daiandlnn wmm had new adduced mne mamlm ma moribund m mm In ius\ Iwsvl Iho bar: can us:-mmeny m we defendant mm he was iummued by Vmmvu Lye to 2:1 fur awn Lashedm“ [22] Dalnm kas GUAN TEIK sun. arm. v HJ. MOHD. NOOR am. HJ. |2oo11ML.Iu Ins a man: Mahkamah Rayuan (e\Ih mamumskan um mam kelevungnn txmenungan dlbenkan dw nzdapan Mahkaman adahh nenjam Ianggungpwil: Mlhkamah bulsan ma‘: unluk rncnmizungkun katamngan sedemukmn nu: xmbnngnn Iuebamvglmlmn, leuplud-V-Murulmeruldx langgumuwlb Mnhklmnh unluk m-lmllhktnh lllnur pllwkxhun dan menmhlnnkan um memlm dokum-n-drzkuman ylng hcl-h manemlkan heuar am mamya sesualu ram Hakmu permcnnsan damn: kc: . mm ppm. gagzl menumpukan pemattannyi kepad: ksan pmhnm dakumen-dokumln Nahum Pfimnrian ulavu mcnemlu kmrangin lnan resomaen-vupmden, upmulnyl mlmmbungkln dangln flokumen-dokumm mm mamlll ..m.a. dnkunundokwmn Ilrsehul menyukmg kaleanqnn hsm mpmm. sw knz\y54wEV mama ,, 3 «mm smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII .nuNG pm Izxpundnn Pamll nwwogxnw mun Imltmunahak damn mam kg: m\ [23] Dalim kes mi mg. lerdapll mu sum. ad: perselwuin upaua penymeslxan tunggalun hayaran pmpk Iersebm adalah mumm-a dun tanpa synval serla manglkal pmak Hannnl darn Delendan Muhkamah um’ memmk up-as ken SEMI JAVA sun arm a. ANOR v DATO' nu AHMAD TARMIZI ru PUTEH I more [um I cu 11:‘ d: mana dlpuluskan hahaw: ‘nu what mm. 7 «an says ‘s snmmy um. Fm any mncmded agreement In cum: M0 exwllnu mm mm be 5 my Ind mm am By mo mm... Ind .n- mm and uvvuuahf-od‘I:cep1Inr.e ollhe lam: by the wave: The Dhmse ‘lhmlmn Ind Imqullfllid“ m cmu:I\ VII nut any auclflanue aoupxea wwm any sandman man may he a ‘ahsnlme and unqunlmetf ammanae u must be abwlula m Ihal a\I 1-mu tel um m me my mum he aweulad n musx be unqunlwued m mm ncraalamae .u.ma mu mudllmn u . qullrfied lcupunca OM: Iuch cunamovul aoeeplnmz .. on me mqmmmu ma! 0 In walk the pumu m umpry n-ax l0 me negauakma mode as [here a new . Dmmhv mm by m. nflaml winch n ma rexscu menwvosal \IVmdriam¥oHheonndmanalzwep1anne perse wound nm rewe ma ongmal awn Ody an mum. and Imqualifind .mpr...u M an mum nllnr by Ihn prupxnlr will :2... n. . culnludod nanlucllsmvnon ma prove an mm :22: An In mm man: u. m. Apwnnch m employ In nnnvellng the rum: nlulix In drhnnlu vmmnr p-me. nun ruched cwlnnaul m mm an mm-mu, an mm: Conn In Dluhcno am my arm Mar «am... am: a Ann! [2015] : cu 1DIl.rIuM\I¢ am In: nlmflnn ‘could my n. nl-In-d hum m. mar-duhlulhr, mu unailnlbtuvu um conduct al In: mus. mm -.m an ma ...u,.c-m mlnd, am upon a N knz\Y54wEV mama 11 3 mm, smm IIIVVDIVWW be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm cnrmdlr-llon or mm... cnmmmlicabd bnwuvl (Mm hy mm or manna,“ «mm an ponpectlvu of the mflannl rlunnablc min." In mm words, me Iutis an nbjnclivn um. [yenekanan mneman} [241 Dalam kes mu, keiarangan bahawa terdapak man sabahk perssiuiuan kepad: penydesaxan tunggakan yang beflaku ienaruang perhvcaraan adalah semata-mate berbenluk hsan fiada keterangan sokurlgan laln (2) Adakah nulnndnn znrhumug kepadi Plalmli amaun upnnlmuu ylng dltuntul clan PI-Imil at rllllm Pnnynann TImIul.|n7 [25] Dalam kes Im berdasarkan kelerangan dan Ivdak dlpenlkaikan pmsk-pnhak‘ maka Mahkamah w yuga menenma hwahan Peguam Plairm! Vang Ternelijir bahaw: plhak-pmak man berseuuu unluk jumllh umggakan yang masm aaa adalah sebanyik RM105 Ma (setelan dvkurangkan dengan lolakan sebanyak RMB14351 10 bag! 2 Mesm Dehumidrfiar dan dlskaun sebanyak RM206.D1251) yang masm perlu dlbayar oleh Defendan kepada Plamlii mu dmyatakan dalam ccc benankh 11 01 2019 lersebul [29] seraasamn kapada kelerangsn‘ max dlpemkankan dan dnpameluml nleh Flalnm dan berpnndukan dukumen hahawa Defendan. dangda umlah lunggakan RM105 ma lelah membayav sewmlnh RM55o,uoa am berbaku sebanyak Rmsoomo Ingx aepem yang lelah mpemmm keaumuz plhak Jumran myaun Rmssamo .uga man dmkun (enma nlsh Plalrmldlnpada Dalandnn IN knz\ySnwE1 nwqawym) .3 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [27] Big! Iunlulan sebanyak RM2D6 um 51, Mahkamah mendapah Pmsk Plnlrmlhdak Vagi baleh menuntu! gunman Iersebul pafla penngkal ml Berdasarkan keterangan. gmak-giuak telah bevselu u kflakan dlhual bagi umran (umgakan dan cam. dmyazakan aaram final account berlankh 11 01 2019 Imam final account Juga amyacakan flan maankan bahawa mnggakan hurang adalah sebanyak RM1 05 ‘L113 selelah tmakan dlbuil bag: jumlah yang Ielah dlperselujul o\eh kedua-dua pmak. Memandangkan Iolakan (ersebm lelah mpersemjuu Keduafiua pwhak maka Mahkaman memuluskan bahawa pmak—p1hak naua Vagw boleh beniolakdallh sena mempemkatkan alau menukarkannya sekivang Kedua—dua pmak tenkat kepada /ma: accoul benankh 11 01 2019 dan tvdak bo\eh menirfikannyi alas spa alasan sekallpun kerans .a mbuuat alas kerelaan masmg-masmg ml Memandangkan plhlk Flemm me man mengakm dan bersetuw aangan mm:-n lersabul Ad-nan max wajav pmak Plalnlfl mbenkan kebebasan unuk mencnbar nan manumm scmula jumlah lenunggak lerssbul am. .-mun pemm xanu dzlum RM1 051m: Ilas alasun bahawa Delsndan Ielah gngar membayar ham RMSDDDOD (ersabul [:9] Dalam Ines ml, Mahkamah mendapan bahawa plhak Defendan lelah memenuhl sebahaglan danpadi Jumlah nmman lersebut sapam duanjlkan dlmana RM550.000 Ielah flnbayar sepertimana dvpersemuu. Make. max wwud keadaan dw mana Deferldan Ielah gsga\ Imluk memamm pelsetujuan tersebnl sepen-mm Kecerangan nsan plhak» plhak wax Iagw wen dvgunakan umuk memelaskan atau menaiikan mat pmak-pmak kauka peryemuan mcap Apabula peqanuln telah dnandatanganu‘ maka pmzk—pmak adalah lenkat umuk melaksanakannya [J0] Maka Plainm Ildak bemak kepada ;um\ah penuh lersebul yang dlkalakan hanya wapar dnnlak seluranya Defendsn gagal mematum perjanpan cacsemu, dan ]um|ah lersebul hams dlkembalnkan semula kepada lumlah asal (unggakan (lanpa sebarang Makan), semanya Defendan gags! msmalum perselujuan yang teiah mmasuk: Maruam hwah Plamm nahawa, memandangkan Deianaan telah gaga\ memalumnya, maka ]um\ah asa\ perm dlbayar [31] Namun Mahknmah IN memumikan hanzwa F\aIn(I|‘ hanyi bemak kapaaa wmlah penun nanpa mlaxan), seku-Anya Dedendan langsungtnizk memmm bayat-an kepada Plamm atau Ierdapal paksaan da\am menenma penyelesalan tarsemn Pefialsanaan sebahagian danpada paraemuan Iersehul idengan membayar RM500,000 danpada semmah RM1 05 Ma) menunjukkan bar-awa pvnamu-nak Ielah mekaksanakan persetuwan yang um-asum din dalim masa ylng sama Prainmaran pun mendapm laedah acaa panaxsanaan sebahagxan danpada le:ma—¢erma persamjuan tersebut [:21 Tindakan new-nan yang Ielan mamenuhl sebahaglan danpada Jumlah nunmxan yang Iekan dtperyemjul adalah selaras dengan xauarangan dokumenlar yang dlkemukakan dalam final awounl benankh 19012019 Pnhalwlhak Idalah lenkll dengln persaluwan lavsehm, lamb-nan pma never-can man membaynr sabamglen dlnpadn Aumlnh lungglkan an m pananuantaiselzut. IN knzwfiawzw «vaawyaa :5 ma am n-nhnrwm be used a mm .. mxmuuy MIN: dun-mm a. .mm mm [:3] Hmah Defendan bahawa Delendan udak bemutang kepada P\amIv1 unluk squmlah Rmsmono on kerina Pm/scIAccounIyang dikemas klm pada 11 1 2019 admah Ianakluk kepada kepervuan Fasal saw; dan 53 7(5) Kanlrak Dehandan .uga menegaskan bahawu Fhlnlll udak pemah memamm perunlukan tersebut den sebahknya celan bemutang kepada Defendan sepeni mans aalam luntulan ba\as nu sampmg nu‘ Puamm jugs benanggungpawab kepada Defendan unluk kemsakan Gan keruglsn akibat kelewatan prqek din ma 2 um mesln Denumnmer {:4} Mahkamah (Idak meneumn human Defendan |e|:ebu| kerana p1hak~p\hak lenkal aengan peuenquan Da\am kcs R.SaravaIun Ram: Kllshnun 5. Anal v. Vlp chee La-mg 4. 0!! (men ms 541 yang memmusksn behawa >u .5 we“-eslabhsh VII the waw M sumac! mat a versnn who .5 a party «a a wnlfan mnlmct ws bound by Ina mm 0! nm comma whemar ov not he mduslsndl the Vanguagu nu wmcn .1 .. aacumanlad m In: nhuvlce 1:! ma ar mznnwuamllnm [:5] lm adslah selaras dengan puhsl awam bahavm seflap perjanuan muktamad hams dvbenkan penekanan flan kasan kuatkuaaa nan sag: perundangan Pnnsvp Im dlnyalakxn dangan was dalam kes r»-uucm ALAM HOUSING sun sun qruaunsmv KNOWN AS BUKIY cemxm nsvaomsur sun awn) v Menu consmucnou sou am: 5 ANOR [:01 41 1 pm 231, dlpumskan bahawa “[231 mm war a comprnmle human Ina Ippaflanl and ma rm resnnndem by way of . ismomun agvaemenl and mm ended me sum IN knzwfinwzw mama ,5 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm bmwaan the palms! Pubhc puncy demands malmare snuma be an Ind cg lmgalmn and live pa.-ues snmm be held to their buvgams Lard Rummy MR .n mu-nuay y HuvvuIH1E6E)2D LT 473. apny saw The Muhr an ma nuns smd nm men an Igmsmenl wu entered mm «ma mmpmmnse. one mama suppose, pnma «ma man me use was naua be Ined aver aga.n' [:51 Dalam mssa yang same dikwaan Dafendan bahiwa ferdapat sewmlah wang Ielah ameukan yang kanonnya mempakan p.n.aman wga bask xemuxn xacarangan yang dlkemukakan serli dokumen yang dlmiuky adalah .e|as bahawa xa merupakan junflah Iunggakan yang leLah dlpelselujul aleh pmak-pvnan berkailan dengan Jumlah yang sepammya dlbayar dan naua langsung bukli bahawa la merupakan ‘am/ancs paymenr kepada Fkamlif oleh Decenuan bagw membanlu Plauntn danpada lerpikss mengemarkan pekerjanya danpada lapak prqek Tlada Vangsung kelemngan nerkaxcan W yang mkemukakan bersena hukn unluk unpemmbangkan oleh Mahkamah "H (3) Aalknh Plnlnlil bamullng kapldl Delendnn unann- amaun suparnmana yang an-mun nlun norondan dlllm Tunlmnn En monk . [:71 Bag: mmman balas nula Mahkimah ini mendapali bahawa uaaa kelewatan yang amuknkan terhadap P\aInM dalam menyvapkan prujek Im memanaangkan «ana sebarang Iuntulan LAD dibuat a\eh Mani-man: pmak sama ada oleh Plainm bagl kamgian alas kelawalan melalul nova IN knZ\Y54wEV nvaawyaa n "Nuns s.n.‘ n-nhnrwm as used m mm s. nrW\ruH|:I mums dun-mm wa mum wrm yang sah bevdasarkan kepada penmmkan komrak Tweda LAD wapr dnkenakan Iemadip Wamm‘ da\am kes W [as] Bemasarkan kepad: kelemngan yang mkemukakanllada sebarang LAD yang dlbayar oleh Dedendan kepada manamana plhak (Hershey) akvbal danpada uewewanan mamm Juga Ilada sebamng Nous Kelswatan mbenkan kepada Plamni mahahan Devfendan |e\ah membenkln perlarwlan masa kapada Plamm dengan max menga-nmr sebarang zmdakan Seklrsnya benar masa ada\ah pemmg, make xeweynanan .n. hams dlambul lmdakan secara khusus d1 bawah kunlvak dan lldak mamadax seluranya nous dwkaluarxan lelapw Ildak memaluhl Klausa 45 Knmrak Alas arasan mu sanaya pun sudah mencukupw bagx Iunnnan balls Deiandan dwlolak Jumlah lemebul bukanlah huhng aleh FVHIVIM IBIEW wanya adalah wang Mtensr yang dupegang men Delenuin nan yuga bukanny dvancs paymanr [:9] sm mga mengesahkan bahawi ma aebarang LAD mkenakan aleh mhak lamleflladap neaenaan Dedendan bemnqah bahawa dakwaan Plamnf yang Tumumn Ealas Defendan aaalan mm yang afiknkan kemudlan. msnnougnn maka SIM max Swap beninlm 2912 201a dan Sim Ingkar berlankh 25.12011 Iidak akan dikaluarkan oleh Defendan Defendan menegaskan bahawa keduaaiua SIN Inl telah dlkeluarkan sebelum Plalrml (elah memulakan prosidmg unaangunaang mi memhuktikan hahawa Tunoman B3135 Dafendan paslmya Indak dvfikurkan semuls Namun, uadalindakan dibuat aeaetah Nohstersebul dvkemarkan IN knz\yS4wE1 r1Pqa|PybD 1: ‘Nuns my ...n.mm be used m mm was mn.u-y mm: m.n.n wa .nuNG pm [40] Dalam Ives um mahkamah bersemu dengan hwahan Plalrmi bahawa Sekiyan 75 ma Knntnk, (Idak terpakai kevina Iidak Ierdapal sebarang pemecahan konllak yang dilakukan nleh Premnf Tambahan puli Pkainlrl bagv menumm LAD alas kelewatan acau kecacalan penaksanaan Korvtrik Ini msankan dengan perakuan dan pengeluaran ccc sejak 15052016 lag: Seharang penaksanaan pemecihan klausa knntrak din xegagalan perlaksanaan komrak msali dibuat Kunlman berdasarkan kantmk nu sandwi lru aaaran se\aras dengan kepumlsan kes CUBIC ELECTRONICS sun am) (IN |.IuuIDA'noN) V MARS TELECOMMUNICATIONS sou am) [2019] s MLJ15 "V01 we mm new no me man on human :71 pm» me mmal anus nu on me pally eeeaing m emoroe a dung: umer . 15 :21 the An in name emdenne mat flnlty, mare was a Dream cf mnlrid am that secondly‘ me comm: comams a dense specwymg . sum to he pmd upon {men Once mas: Mu lhmlnll have been euenusnea, Ihe Innnnenl puny e enltuefl In naewu . Ium nm Ixnumnn me Imnunl Iuuulluad m In: uonlrud vmnuedwe mmmm mm name or ‘as! w prowvl‘ wmafl away: In me uaveum-v; parry pnmng me umeeumennenese Mme damsges clause mcludmg (M sum subed mam", ¢ any rm] In suruvury ma var mnvenimm, me pmmmux mu may In dmfllnd hum hvremahuve are lhcse m an my mb (9) (0 IN knz\yS4wE1 nvqswym 1! we smm ...m.mm be used m mm me mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG Wm! «emu mma\ onui Inn on ma vim seehuw to emuwe a damage: dam: nude! 5 75 o1IheAum adduee mam matflnfly‘ man: was a mam M wn|rarA and max aammry, Inc mnuaa aannamsa dause apeawmg a sum In an and upon lvvaach Ono: me» two eismemi ruva bean ulablwxhada me mnooum puny a mmaa (0 rwawc 5 um um mu-«mg (ha amount Inpulllnd m mu Dunlncl muaawvl M wruma mm: dlmlge 01 Ian - maven nubwfl amvx m ma dellultmfl nany wanna ma umawnaolan-as -11 me damages as-use muamg me um shied Ifiertm‘ it any‘ ind w my Eemasarkan kelerangun ma, Mans: 56 Ana Kuntrak vase juga udak b0\eh Iefvakax kzrana nada lunlulan all! KGVCWBXIH berdasarkln kunlvuk Isiah mbual malahin mus page Ielah dnealsv wen pmak-pmnk Dlllm kes SIM OHIO HUAT V WONG TED FUI [ISIS] I MLJ 1§I, dwputuskln bahuwa “Nawevev me rules namamed u. semen 5s m In cnnwnu Au me man dmemm hum ma pom» unwed alm eummun law mm mm Pang Rainy ua Y N; Km: Pang um; MLJ us as Thu polhon a :2». Wm . aomma m was um. V: at mu nuance‘ - p-rm to Dirluml n lay ma .uaax.:.a Mme‘ me mnaant puny his the "am erlher «a Miami 4». aama, m In man u :5 sun wbswslmy n ne lmats u annamn-ssry M w mmum as s11I\ mnunmng. (ha wmnd um: um um: ceases I.) na 01 the enema and became: M wage Consequenuy‘ he cannot clam: ma nqunanau dam-9:: my me mnlmrn unleu me u . pmrvhron n to me ammm of mm Nrmevuv. um nunlznn an 1» vwwnd am In me an bu muomd m an Mme aaama by ma Innocent vmy Inmng . now: In ma puny m aamn nwmu a new car: mwmmeban {See nuasan an arm a am NM: 5 am: mam wuuld be a uaca mm mm uqunaraa manages am be nulatzed In the p/uenuppeul, an Inn um: um me rupondemgwe name na ma wuenam Hume danses zo mam unmx be enlmned am knnyfiawzw «vaawyau zn ) “Nana am nnnhnrwm a. med w may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm |.a1arbI|:kang km: [4] Melalui Surat Anugerah benlankn 2aA2m4 (“LOA“) Plavml |e1ah amannk nleh Delendan sebagav Sub-kontraklorunmk merualankan kegs. Xena yang d1ksnaI|sebagaIPakejP6000-Fenyaman Udara, Fengudaraan Mekamkal dan Snstem Air Fenyejukan Proaes bemllal RM66,U55,00U.00 ('Kena“) unluk Pmek knang baham unluk Hershey a: La! FTD mean‘ nsn saess Muklm Sena: Daamh Kulax Jaya, Jnho1('Pvujek“) [51 Manurul LOA‘ Plainm aan Defendan mamksanakan unluk Kans- Kena [‘Kamrik') berdisarkan konlvak vasml benankh 29 9 21:14 Kanlrak amara Plainlll dan Dalzmdan mengandunui amara lam, LOA dan (ankh penenmaan 2: A 2014 am: Karma Konlrak merlglkul boring smaam dzn syamsyarac Eorang Kamrak '\nsmus\ Jumtere Malaysia mew:-; urvluk Ken1a—kena Kemmtelian mekamkax darn ElekIrIk- Edm Kedua 2012 [6] Jurmera penmmng yang mlanuk unluk Prmek tersebut i:\a7I M.E.I. Perundmg Sdn Er-:1 (“Junnera'|dan1umlah pengekalan an bawah kentrak aumah RM3‘302‘900 00. m Tankh slip unluk Plamlii manylapkan Kena—Kaqa pan. mulanya adalan pad: 2a 2.2u15 Wmau bagaxmanapun, um kemudlannya dllarumkan kepadz an 5 2915 memu. peraetujuln burslma anllva Prmnnv dun Deiandan Fakla im uunk mpen mm IN knz\yS4wE1 nvqawym ; -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! Hawewuv, even me mum mums a mu: amw. clause or avun Wan mmeem pany lawn: a whee an the my m defimm Ieqmnng me mm m mmplele me week by 3 serum «mg, damages are na| as . mm. M course Iwaruod m lavnuv :11 the empnayev Gary m urcurluunon m WHEN m. ampluyor ov mu mm ». u: no wlyln mime Vullhc guy wnuki m. manna wilmg in slow damages Mmstnpluwl wmnbulu In mu dohy by miamg am work 0 : nanny mm; delay .. deivsnw Wuuuion at on mg, m M any amev muse no damuges wmfl ha mm [see Hudsm pp 625-623) [42] Damn kes EERJAVA TIMES saunas: sun arm (FORMERLV KNOWN As BERJAVA DITAN SDN BHD) V M coucsn sou arm [zo1n11 Mu S07, mwtuskan buhawr “[45] Yheve s arlemalne qmunfl vm mamg malume ‘s nananm assent: n n ma Tm vupLw¢5n\, though n mu m. ugh! Io pm -n Ind «a me m..u.a mm In: lranI\Iln| mm m mm m. ....n wxlhm mu m.,m...a lame. and not do so Vnslud. n eanhnuefl mm niymants and neooununfi vu dam/=VY The vewumarvrs covndmz cerhmly pmnts tu me conduinun mm mm .1 mm wt: M Ihe ssenm when me comma wu mane (spealung ameam noeaseflwhen1Hhe$enae There are many amhurmas cum: u.u..a B-nIfin¢\\m1l\uen\In rnemy mu m Ina]mgmen|o1 n. Azlnn sm 4 In Hm am n...m.... man w y m Wang Kup Slug V Jnrlm Ruhbm am. Lm|I9s9]1 MN 245 mu: m and One: me um: kx mmpmnn VII .uw...s «u pun And me pm. .....n on mgmurmg (hen mm wu no longer M m. enemas of he comma am In: fleieudalrs mus! I've I veawnzbla ncmoe M llmr wmalmon In airman lhe uunhzd fl me Izililwe 111 mu purchue moi‘?! was no‘ Band (W&b vHughe:|1£7fl) LR 10 Eq 2m Mn2M.SImkneyvKeeme -sAnm[1915]Ac33smp423y u m. a.mm. ma ... ma vary any 01 an Novumber use . m. mm: nan: lnroomvlatum M. I..." sum, (Mu daemon would have been mm mm: wn Mme swam): and llvtvuld haw: sm knz\y54wEV mama 21 x mm. smm IIIVVDIVWW be LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm heen vmvlr cm mam m we nave: an he dly fix-d Var mmp¥e|mn mm mzywumd abandon mmmm hulanerqomg on negalwmtnglheysnauld have gm. miserable now: mlizy V Thomas (1567) U? 3 ch APP an my Delendan menegaskan bihawa Flalrmf bemmang kepada Defendan semmlah RM3‘302_90D on sebagaw Ganllrugx yang dlpasfikan pengwaan berdasarkan knntmk Kerana Plammelam menangguh dalam menylapkan Kana mereka se\ama Iehm daripada so nan sepem yang drakul olen Planmfl da\am priamg mereka Im seterusnya melayakksn Defendan menumm jurmah penuh Kerosakan ssbagal LAD din dilolak danpada ]um\ah renlsrmon sums sebanyak RM3‘302,900 on yang dnpegang men Devenaan bemasarkan Hausa 46.1 Konlrak hadasarkan kepurusan kes Mahkamah Persemuan damn. cuanc ELECTRONICS sou am an uoumnncmp v runs TELECOMMUNICATIONS so» am: (2019) zcu 12:. [44] Saknranya mum kslawman auuwx (erdapat 3 lankh karewaun den eaklnnya Mahkamah mangammx yang paling awal dnnpad: ligl (3) Ilnkh allemzmf Im mnu 15 3 2015 terdupal keiawzlan sehml 77 nan lm mm barkesan Iknn mambcxanxan nmanaan menpenakan LAD makslmum sabanyak RM3‘3D2‘90O no .1: bawah konlrak sepem yang dlkemukakan dalam hujahan sebsluru In: Sekwanya menuamw Iinkh hanya unxuk mass kerwazan aelama so han makl LAD makmmum Idalah sebanyak RM3,3U2,5iuIl no IN knnyfiawzw mama 12 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 145; Deiendan nemuyar. uanawa, la adabh slkahtanggap bahawa hany: kerana plhak kellga Iidik mangenlkan LAD ke alas Defendan‘ Defiendan lldak sepalulnyi menuntm LAD danpada Plamm Defendan menegasklrl bahflwa Kormak antara Plalrmldan nevman hukanlah kunlvak back to back yang memeriukan pmak keliga untuk mengenakan LAD sehemm ueveman men rnengenakan perkara yang same kepada sub- konlrikxomya sapem Plalnlfl dalam kes mu Alas sebib vm, Ivdik ada man.a—mana da\am Kunlrak yang menyatakan bahaws Konuak hendaklah dnbaca secara back to back Ierulamanya apabua Ia nerkaman dengan pengenaim LAD [45] Salu-ulunya pvmyavac unluk Devendan menunlul LAD danpada Plamm mm mengemarkan SW max Slap sepem yang dnailpkan dalam Kllusl 45 241) Knnmk sepem yang umnan dx Dew: : 4.: c.m_..m..«-...«u. u. .....:........,.......... y....,.. ..............n....u..y...~ :».,..n......y..«.»....y ........ .,......y-.c—......-m...‘ ......A .. -M. 7... ....y... y... .y .. n......-. ... 3... y.(.y.. . .4. z .. ..<..r....n.m ram. .. my... mum ..y. .. mm .. M c...“ .. \h:(\~u1-an Infll\51y\H»4 um. »-4.... _ M-1 y. W: nlrvqlmun y. uh IN.-on _ &n .....« P: o. «.y.._..x x.. .....,‘.». (M. MN-1 ¢_...y.. y.. ..y . ...y.. M y......._...y n. In rum. IMAM ......», an... m y.m..._.. .. M... y .. Lxnau . I-nly ..‘..y....n=.y.....m.u.me.,...m. _y.,.m..,...a..y.r...(...».<\...y... [47] Mankamah mendapau hahuwa kedun-dun syn um (Blah dxkmuarkan wsmlah lebm 1 luhun nlapas Bar-ng ccc (Borang F) dwkemarkan men Kcnsunan dlnlellh memperukul bahuwa ianya adllah salnmaman Iaynk didudukx lnl -man pnm Iacis xemangm bah-we Ianyn man mp aepenuhny: Bagalmlna sun Penikuln mm s. balah dnkeluarknn pad: 2512 2015 an Cenlicsta of osrau/1 bulah dikeluanun p-an m knz\yS4wE1 mama 1: mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm he mm-y mm: dun-mm y.. mum pm 26012017 setelah ccc lelah dlkeluavkan flan naaa sebaring keterangan bahawa vanya uduk dlluluskan men Majlla Psrbandarin Kmal‘ musavnya Sekvinya I8 dikeluarkan keran: alas mu 2 um: Mesln Dehumidifier maka Nous tersebut adalah maak selaras dengan Klausi kanuak nan LAD max boleh dnunlut DI bawah Klausa 47 3 (1) (h) was menyacakan bahawa Juruteva boleh udak memperakukan kena—ker}a Iersebul seklmnya max dlbual mengxkut spesrfikasw Tlada cam dalam kes um bahawa pendapal an bawah Mama 47 3 (1) (b) Konlrak ml Isiah GVKEVUEMBH Mel! Defandan Kepada Flamlll Maka aplbrll sun Perakuan Swap te\ah dlkeluarkan maka wanya ada\ah selaras dengln maksud dl bawah Klausa 47 3 Konllak Iallu Ianya celah slap an “M9 works hsva passsd BU Ills test under (he wnlracf Jldl urlluk LAD dl bawah K\ausa 46 dwgunapakaw men Delendan bag! LAD maka sun :1: bawah K\ausa 47 Knnlrak tweak boleh mperaxukan oleh Konsullun P|aIn|il Apabfl: SIM CCC dlkeluaman, maka Deiendan (Idlk bolsh lag: mengaluarkan sum Perakuan max Smp aacarn kabelaknngln sepeni mlna yang cubs dllikukan olen Devendan dI\Im kes Im [43] Bag: dakwaan bahawa Pkamm bermnang kepsda Dafsndan sebanyak RMm72,s44.2a yang mana wmlah RMI,S2§,955 72 yang telah dlbayav Kepada Plamm oleh Defendan adalah bayaran vendahuluan yang dibuat alas pevmmcaan Plamm, maka Dalandan sepammya dlbenarkan menunlul jurnlah mi lni kerana ntengnkulsuransural P\aInM yang memima bayaran permanuluan dan sebagaumana yang Ielah auakukan onen Plainml pada masa lalu. Bag! muahan im Mahkamah mendapain llada seaarang sukongan bamm pembenan Iarsehul aaaran IN knnyfiawzw mama ,. -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm unmk advance payment kapada mam sepemmana yang few: duelaskan sebemm mi Mankaman menalak lurmnan am K-aimpulm Tmmn-n PI-um! [A9] Alas wmbangan kebarsngkalvan, Mahkamah menaapau hahawa Plaxmil Ielah benaya membukukan kes lerhadap Detenuan dan Mahkamah dengan ml membenankan Iunlulan P\aInlIf sepem benkul up Tunman sehanyzk RM500 nbu |erhIdap De4endan adalah dubenarkan nu) Faednn sebanyak 5 % avas ]um\ah RM500 nbu darlpadn lankh 11 a1 2012 sahmgga penyewesanan sepenuvmy-, can (In) Kos sebanyak Ruse nbu dtbayar oleh Deflendsn kepada Plamm temakluk kepada alokmur. Tumuun sun Dmnum [so] Berdasarkan kepsda slasan yang dmyatakan an alas, Mankan-an msndapall atas Imbengan keharangkallan. Deiendan (e\ah gaga\ membukllkan kesnya lerhadap F\aIrmi dan msrumuskan sepem benkul IN knnyfiawzw mama 25 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm my Maka dengan ml mnnnam bales Deiendan lsmadap Pkalmw drtulak (u) was penmah alas kos EANAGIAN ll Alum Panghaldman [Kn Na PA.22Ncvc.1s4—w2o21] [sq Memandangkan kes Im dldengar seremak, dalam Fenghakxman Im. Mahkamah udak akan mengurang. fakla kes dan juga vsu yang lelah ummungxan maauam kes No PAr22NCV(‘/15471/2022 Eagw muan penghakxman Kes m, Mahkamah menegaskan m sum bahawa Alasan Penghaklman dmam kes PA—22NcvL;15o1/2022 men dlanggap sebagal sebanagnan danpada Alasan Penghaklman bag! ks mi seklvanya terdapat pemnflman Asu dan fakla sena alasan yang lelah dlbenkan bag! bag: membclehkan pmakpmak menggunapakai alasan da\am kes PA- 22Ncvc45—o1/2022 ueysamwsama penghakwmsn bagl ke: ml (K33 No PA—22NCVC-I54-09/202!) [521 K35 um dldangav hevsekah dengin kel PA-22NCVC-15-01flD22 um xinyl malmackan lunlman Pramm Iemadap Delandan bag: menunlul semul: wmlan RMa74,951 m aklbat Iolaknn 2 um! Masin Penyahidvatan tensebul dan RM2os,o«215 yang xeran aupersemm unluk dlikaun seklrinya usual mamaluhl persetuwan vm IN knnyfiawzw r1PqB|PyhD ,5 -gm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [531 Jummh mnlulan terssbul dmum oleh Pxainm berdasarkan kepada final aceoum benankh 11 012015 my (elah dlpersehuul uleh pIhak- pmak Torakan wmlan (arsenal dxperaaium aleh Fkalnm alas alasan bahawa behau Ingm mendapalkan wmlah hayaran sehanyak RM1 as juta dalam camm 2019 Isu-llu dmlcnralun lal Adakih lerdapal pedanjvan antara P\smM a. Delendin berlarikh 11 1 2019 men9ena1Ak:un mm anlara mam dan wenaanv an Adlkah Dafendln berhmang kepadz Plmrmiwabanyak 5ou,oou.oo sapem yang mum-n dalzm Penyala Tunlutarfl (c) Adakah Dmnuan mempunyan nan unluk memotong wmlah RMB74‘95l 1a untuk 2 Dahumldmev danpada Plamn my mam mesu menu remedv yang mereka mgm Iakukan umuk mengelakkan pemullhan berganda (2) same ads Dehumidifier yang dwbekflkan alah Plaintfl Iidak memenuhi spesmkasn an Adakan Devenuun mempunyll luk unmk mamolong Jumlah RMa14,951 1a unluk 2 Dehurmdifler flnripnda Puamm Analiu am aapaun Mahkamah m Adakah Iemlpal Denlrulan Imam Pumas. Delendan bmankh 11.1.2019 mengsna1Akaun Akhll Inlara Plamm dun Defendarfl IN knnyfiawzw mama 7 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y M. dun-mm VI] muNG pm Dan (b) Adakah Delendan bemulang kepada Plainm sehanyak 500,000 so aspen: yang mumzm dalam Penyafa mmmanv [54] Mnhkameh akan merumuskln d-EDIE?! bag! (a) man (D) W sacari aerentak Plalnlfl mandakwa bfihlwl Akaun Plnjek yang dlkamaikvm pads 11 01 2019 bukanlzh ikiun muklamad din hanyalah pengamalklnlan flkzlm Plaxlllli bemubunq dengln xknp karja Plamllf menuvut Knnlrak ln hunya Akiun Froyek yang dvkemaiklni pads 1112019 din hnrvyalih pmgsmaskunnn akaun Pliimfl berhubung danger: skop kena P‘ Iii menumt Komrak Akaun Fvaiek Iariebul adalah dengan jelas din nyila bamyant dan sarna sekah um bermaksud muktamad [551 Im dapal uumac dengan yams berdasarkan kandungan Akaun Pmyek yang dikernaskml pads 11 1 2019 Deiendan selamulnya mengemukakan bahawa Akaun Pmjek yang dikemas knm pads 11 1 2019 bukanlah akaun muklamad dun hanyalah pengemaskmlan akaun Flam bemubung dengan skup keqa Plamlll menurumamrak Akaun Prqek tevsebul mam. dengan jelas flan nyaca bevsyarat dan same sekaln ndak bermaksud muklamafl PII In bemujlh banawa apablla manenln kandungan Nmun Prmak yang dlkemas km: pada 11.1 201%: man: :2 dlnyatakan dengin jalal bnnawa IN knz\Y54wEV mama 13 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm akaun lemebul adalah rsnakluk keplda Klausa 55114) din 597(5) Kanuak sepem yang mgambarkan m hawah sn ......._...........u.u H. u. « 4-Ann: .\. .. .... . mm. ..“.3..‘_ ....m_ M... m .. .. .... ..‘ IJm—\ .4... .., mrm .... M... W... .m am. who ... an-v-N ....... .. . [....... .n.‘c..._w.-. IV(I[hhfV‘VK mm m ms.......- ....u..,um....».m...,.....«.«..w.m...M. ........._..;~_.........c..........».....,..._.......n.. m V. ...n...... ._ .,. .....,.o.,»..m.—m.. ..‘..,..... .n.M.~ M... MD: W.....n...............m.=...m.x.....«¢»...........n.n‘-... m n. n... ...‘ ‘... .. mm ».,... c...m... an». ,.»...M... M... ....m _m...m.......m..........=..,»...._.n..m..a...,:u...n,..mm [56] Menurul Klaus; 55714) knnlrik maanut, Pmmw hanyn buhh um-ya: sepnruh danpaea Jum\ah Ramu allu Had Pangaknlan map: lenakluk kepada sun B-yarln lnlanm mum mkaluarknn cleh Jurulara Eda mag my gama umasa Jugfig maggguarkgn 5: §i§2 Kerg kapadl Plamm naram Kunhk lersebut, bag: mongalakkan xekel-rum Mukan kepada 'Komraktor“ dahm Kommk adalah merujuk Kepada Plamm [571 Java dnujuk kepeda Hausa 551(5) puls memperuntukkan bahawi Jumlera mesh mengeluarkan sim Bayaran Inlenm unluk pelepasan bakx Jurmah Smlpanan acau Had Fengekalan gas: mass Eng ssma aemasa gums: mengaluaman gm Membual Kenaoalan aw. [sq Defandln bemuph nan-w. im leluh dinyatakan dnlam Pnyacl Account din mp-t unmet dunner! mu an m klndungln yang dikemi: mm pads 11 12019 Dofsndan bemujnh bahawa Plalmfl man gagal m krIz\Y54wE1NPqB|PyhD mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! mengemukakan sebavann memngan dan bukn bahawa kepenuan Fasal 59 7(4) din 55 7(5) Kontvak larssbul celan dlpenuhl Berdasarkan kepada account lersebul -a bukan account muktamad Oleh nu. adalah Jekas bahawa lvada Akaun Akmrdlbuaf pads 11 I 2019 an Mamlriudak berhak unluk menumm ;um\ah Rmsouooo oo [59] Dakwaan Plslnm pma Bahama behau berselwu mas dasar umuk penmupan Akaun Fmjek tersebul dapal dxhua| dan Delendan akan membayar RM1 as ma kepada Defendan Jumlah RM105 pm akan albual dalam dua (2) kalx bayaran mm sebanyak RM550.0D0 pan 11012019 din RMSDQODO |Ig\ dalam bulan Jun 2019 [cu] Dahwaan P\aInIIf hahawa bayaran panama sebanyak RM550,0DD no yang dtbual cleh Devandan pada 1112019 zdalah femadap mana-man: akaun muktamad adilah bo\eh dnerima kerana hada kelerangan buyarin um sebnnyak RM550,00000 sebenamfi memnakan biyaran vendahuluan yang dibuat o\sh DeVendan alas perrnlnlsan Plairml mas langsung cacatan di mans-man: dakumen hahawa we merupakan pungaman kepada P\a|nhf Jam adalah jelas hanawa jurmah RMSDQDDO bakl yang am-mm adalah mnasman bavaran prolek vm kepada mamm (c) Aflakah Delendln mempunyal nuk unluk memomg Jmnl-n Rue74.951.1o Imluk 2 nohumlulnu durlvadz Pulnm IN knnyfiawzw mama an -m smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm M P\aInlIi um dapaf menywapkan Kane-ken: lersebut pm 3052015 Aknzama. Jurulsra mengemaman Saul max Swap (‘cNc'p berlankh 213122016 menumt Klausa 452 Knntrak cm: lersebm memperakm bahzwa mam-v telnh glgal un|uk melaksimakan merlgxkul speslfikasi :1! Dawn Knnlrak dakam mass yang diperlukan la] Femkanan mum: apablla Plamm mg: gagal memasang dan memasllkan um! nenum-amer barfungsx menglkul Kumrik Selepas mu, Jurunm mangemarkan sum lngkar berlankh 2s12m7 kepada Plamm menurm mass 51 1 Komsk yang memperakm banawa Flamm lelzh mgkar dalam nbhgasu kanllaknya m1 Serimul 3 arina saksw lam: mp-mi: mu Lam Chas Woni (sm), 1: Thin Shaau We! @ sopma Than» [snz] dan Data‘ Sen Vr um Kck Khang qsna) lsu-isu ylng dlhicnrnkan [11] Sumasl permcar-an penun, figs (3) us-mu benkm «am mkamukaxan mm (1) Adakah persehquan m amara P\aInIIl‘ dan Defendan bemankh 11 oxzme suanu "W18/30004lflf'dl antana Pllmm den netenaanv (2; Adakah Deflundin berhulana kepndu P\aInM amaun separllmanl yang «mum: elm P\amIfl di di\am Fenyilaan Tumulan? sw knz\y54wEV Wqawyxan » um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm :51} Delendan msrmakwa Pkamui Ielah bemutlng dsngan Delendan unmk wmlah sepem yang ditunmt dalam Tunlutan aauaa den Dafendan berhsk memomng [IAm\ah RMB74‘!-751 IO unmk 2 um! Meslrl Dehumidifier danpada P\amM kemna polnngan Im lelah mpeysexuyuu oleh Plamm memandangkan 2 unn masm nenummmer wm (idak mamenum spesmklsw kuntmk nan men nu Plamwexah gage! mememmr kewaupan sepemmana dalam konvlrak ancava mam dan Delendan Delendan menvalakan bahswa pecahan Iunlulan dapat dipacahkan sepem benkm 1;) Tunluan Kamsakan untuk yumxan RMa,au2,soo on, my ca, hahk unlukJumVah RM1‘172‘S44 2e, dan my Bayaran Fendahuluan RMI,629,955.72 [51] Eerdaslrkan keierangan sedva ada Mahkamah menaspm bahawa Plamm berhak menunlul iemula yumlan RM874.9§l 10 aknbal Iolnkan 2 um Mesm Panyamaracan lersebut dan RM206.DI2 15 yang lelah mpersetuym unluk mskaun sekuranya gagal mematuhu perseluman ml [63] sepem yang wan u-pmuskan dawn Kes PI¥22NCV<‘/1501:2022 uaak tevdapal kelewalan dw pmak Plamm dllam penyemaan 2 unn Mesm Dehumxarfier (Penyamdralanl Penyahlembepan) temebul, letlpx kelewalan yang «mum ada\ah dlakibalkan oleh wsu mcsln (ersebu| yang mana bukan dv dalam k:w:\an Pllmul lalapl clan pmak pembekal [64] Bevdasurknn vakta kes Ierdipal 23 unit mesin yang ek:\kun dun hanyi 2 unit sarma yang maniidl usu Pinak-omakxal-h bemnuju untuk IN knzwfiawzw mama ,, -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm lcflakan Irv dlbual dun dmyanakan dalam nnal aacou! dan vanya telah dlpersetuiui dan dlfandatangaru Sama ada wajar alau max Dem .k pmyak, Hershey 1'FemHIk') menunlul 2 mm nenumvdmar yang dilempah sendun berdasarkan «am kes mw Defendan bemnan adalah wa.ar dan sememangnya munisabah bag: Pemlllk unluk menunml 2 um’! Dehurmdnfier kerana yang mbekauen oleh sub—kamrak(erIpembeka\ Pkaxntif yang dwkflangkan dv Vndva Isiah gags! unluk memenum alau mememmv spesifikaaiyang dnperinkan an bawah Konlvak [55] Bag: Planrml pma Iunhnan rarnaaup RM874,9511D flan RM2oe,u12s1 ada\ah kevan: kagagalan Daaenaan unmk mematum ayarax pembayaran yang neran mpaaemym Flamlxl mendakwa persenuyuan Iersebul hanyl drhenkln acaa syarat unmk penutupan akaun flan Delendan berseluyu menmnyar nan RMSHQDOD (mzunun deflam xe FA~22NCVC-15-K71/2022) [es] Plainul berhugah bahzwa kegaqalan membayar mangmn persetujuan eersebur menyebabkan Mam bemak unluk mendapa: semula keseluruhan inmlnh yang anorak da¥am Imal account (ersebm Mahkamuh mandlpmv bahlwl Flnlnfll harhak kspada xumuun (enema bukamah maauankan olah kegaullin Halnlil memenuhl mm lenebul, Ketapx adzlflh kerana kagagalln mamltum pembekzlan Z Um! mesill Dehum Ifier usrsebuladalah kerana hndakan oleh pembskil ylng an my kiwahn PVSVIM lm dlbukllkin dannarl sum pembekll Ilflu Ely A An’ (M) sun Ehd untuk muatifkasikan keclcalan temehul In: mempakln -racrwy defect’ yang bnkan dliebabkln oleh mam my lemuktl dengan nanya 2 uml mesln nanun-iamar um. yang bermasalah danpada 23 unit yang IN knzwfiawzw nvaawyaa 31 man snnnw ...n.mn be used m mm me nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm wa .nnm Wm! dIbeka\kan Delendan AUDI ndak membuat sebaranw aduan herkauean mesm yang «em dIbeka\k:n Iarsebuf (o) Sum: Ida nohumlamor ylng dunk-nun oloh Flllnllf uank mamnmml up-aimmn [en Huyanan navenuan pma lelakan lemadap 2 um! mesm Denumiamer Iersehul adalah wayav kerana Deienuan terpaksa membetu 2 unit Mesm oehunudmer Iersebm danpada Hershey USA dan Pia-nm periu membayamya sebsgal ganli kepada 2 UN! mesln Denummmev yang dvbekalkan yang udak mengxkm spesnfikasn [cs] Ham-1 Dahlwa 2 um: masm Dehumxdufier yang dubekalkan man Pllmlrmdak memenum speamkasx aaaxan yelas danpada keierangan yang dnkemukakan semasa pavhlmvazn flan Ianpa seam: pun keraguan Manurul Konuax, Plamlrl perlu membekal aan memasang 23 Dehumldlfiav 2 danpad: Denummmer Am mak memunuhi speslfikaax knnlrak Ianu. DEH~K\SS-1 darn DEH-FLEX- [59] ManaKa\a Plamlvf pula berhujah bahawa 2 Unrl Mesm Denum-dim cersemn maslh amen berfungsi dan mnenkan jamman oleh plhak yang membekilkirvya Iailu Bry — Av ( M) Sdn End Mas alasan w Prams: berhwah Ianya mak amen mmmm lemadap Hamm kerana Defendan sepamlnya membenkan peluang kepida Planmn unluk menyelesalkannya dan hukan (ems mandapatkan aanpada pemheka\ vam nan menumut bayaran danpada Pnamm IN knnyfiawzw «vaawyaa :3 ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. anmmuuy mm: dun-mm wa .num wrm rm] Eerdasarkan lakla yang felah dunyacaxan sebelum Im umakan pembekalan \ersebuI adalah dlluav kawauan Plalntfl Plhak Plalrmlberhak menunun kepada yumlnh ml kavan: nada buklx bahavm kebvmlan berkanan rnealn dtsebabkan (flail Plaxntlf Ietsni sehenamya VSU bekaman ada\ah temang spesvfikasl mesm tersebul yang dlluar kawalan Plalnllf Juaa terdapal bukfi bahawa Hainlw xaran membeh 2 um: mssln Danunuamav yang haru danpada pembeksl Vain lanpa memberikan peluang Kepada Plamtn‘ unmk merallfikaswkanya sepemmana le\ah duamm cleh pembekal Pmik Defender: sawayamya mendapalkan persewjuan F\amlIi «anamn dahulu kerana aaauan yaxas me\alui komumkasi yang wuyua (I) Mann omnuan nmnpunyal hlk unmk memolong Jumllh nm14.m.1o unluk 2 Dalmmidfller ampu- Puinun [111 Eigl xsu -n-, Mahkamah Ialah menyalakan sebsmm mu Defendan Ivdak bemak unluk meno\ak ‘man in: kerana 2 Dehumidifier yang le\ah dlperuleh dan mpesan olen Penullk sewawmya mbayar olen Defendan sendm kerana Deaendan max membenkan pemana kepada P\aInlIf untuk merahfikaslkanya vmlaupun xaran dibenkan makmman bahiwa Mamm hersedia berbual aemman rm Du samplng ma juga Delendan berrwah Plamm mean memllm remedv yang rnareka mgln lakukan unluk mengaxakxan pemuhnln bergandn Mlhknmah bersmum dengan hujahan Delendan hanawa P\amh1 ndak bumak kepada pemulman herganda IN knnyfiawzw «vaawyaa 3. -ma am ...n.mm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: flan-mm VI] aF\uNG pm rm Namun berdasarkan kepada perselujuan yang Aellh mcapau, maka ;um\ah W telah dlsahkan o\eh Plamm unluk mmuak, maka Plalnm Ialah melepaskan haknya kepada Defandan den max wen msnunlulnya kembah kerana sakiranya uni mcenaman, maka nnaracccunman mnlulan da\am kea PA—22NCVC—1501l2U22 yang berdasarkan kepada final account ml akan Ierbata\ Lian mi seam benanlangan cengan mat pthak pmak yang Ielah bersemju den mengesankan mmxan yang le\ah dlnyalakan aawam I/nal aocounfberlankh 11 01 2019. [74] Mahkamah belsemju dengan muahan Feguam Delendan Yang Terpe\a;aI bahawa la akan maruums kepuda lunlulan berganaa lemadap Dcvencan dan am msmhual Flamllldlperkayakan tanpa wajav sekuanya Iunlulan Am dlbenarkln lenpa panyelarasan dubual oreh Mahkamah [75] Fkalntif da\am No PA—22NCVC-15-01/2022 menymakan bahawi /msl account Ie\ah mseduakan pada 11 12019 flan semmlah RM5oo,oou no cemmang ulen Defendan kepad: P\amM Walau bagavmanapun, Plamm dmam ha! vu menyaxakan Had: akaun akmr dan bahawa Plaimvf kunonnya cemak menunlm jumlah RMB7A,s5I 10 umux 2 um: mesln Dehummmer nan semmlah RM206,012 51 Iagl Keduadua dakwaan w bentanggah amara salu sama lain. P\amlIi mesh memlllh (unlman alau remedl yang Inglnkan. [76] Earkanan dangan Iolakan 2 mm mlsln Dehurmdvfiar pull, bavdusarknn kapiua «am kes Mlhkamlh mendapall mu cuku bnhawx terdapal paknan bag! Pnamm unluk barxeluw lgav ]um\zhIarsahuI dwlmuk u-um final account an m. (shah dvperseluwl plhnk-plhlk sacarl suk-rela IN knzwfiawzw rwqawyxan 35 mm scum ...m.mm be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm Pmak-Dihak Irdak bo\sn manafikanny: sekarang am msnaubah persalwuan Iemehul sepem yang telah mpuluskan dalam kes Rsanvanan Ram. Krishnan a. Anny V. Vzp cm: Loong A o-s(za1s) ums 547 [11] Eeldasarkan kepada cam Ielsebut dan (erdapat pengakuan berkanannya da\am dokumen dan kelevangan an Mahkaman, telah Izrbulm bahawa lolakan kapada Aumllh Iru marsh dlbual dx dalam fmal sccnunt benankh 11 01 2015 seems ssh |7Bl Namandunukan Iolakan kapada 1umIah w dan lal-h aipersmulm olah pmik-plhak darn canpa vaksaan, maka Mankamah manaekalkan tumkan darn mmlah Iarsahm sepem mans dalam final acwunl Perkara xsrah ma di daham pengecanun Defendan me\aIu| swat hanankh 22 12 2016. [79] Eemsarxan kspada Fengnakuman da\am has No PA—22Ncvc—1s m/2022, walaupun P\amM berhak kepada jumlah dalam has PA— 22Ncvc—1s44)9/2u21 ml. namun alas persemuan pmak-plhak da\am final accmml, mmxan (unggakan uevenuan temauap Plalnm nenaaklan amuan palirasan wwajsrnya dan lalakan yang man dlbuat bag: mmlah Fznghaklman dalam Imal accmml ualam kes No PA-22Ncv<;I5~ o1/2022, mkekaxkan IN knz\y54wEV mama ,6 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Kusimpulun [30] Ana: Imbangan kebarangkafiarl‘ Mahkamah msndapali bahavm Plamm Ie\ah benaya membukukan kes lemadap Defendan flan dengan Im memuluskan bahawa 1‘) Tunlulin F\aInM u-gu mmlah Rmaugsc In flan RM206,D12 15 aaavan dwbenarknn, namun ]umIih hmlulln W yang man amanurkan dallm ks: um 1RME74.951 10 am RM2D6‘0!2 15 yang (Blah anmak flan mperselujuw da\am mm accounl benankh 11 012019 ada\ah dlkekahcanj. am mkura senagm penohkan kepada iumlah tunggakan Ddendan kepada P\amlIi dannm kes No PA- 22Ncvc»15»m/21:22 (n) Kos sebanyak Rmznmono dlbayar oleh Devendan kepada Pluunul canaxlux Kepada alokalur. AZIZAN mm sun: Persuruhjayu akllrun Mlhkumnh nggl(3) Pullu F nang B-nuikn pad: 12 .01 21123 IN knnyfiawzw mama ,7 \ -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Klunul 5: PI nu Rarull Smgh nmuon Teluin Ranm Smgh Dmuon & Ca Na 77-A Laban Bishop 10200 Plflau Plrlang Kaunsel hagi Dolondln: Alvian Julian, Lung Mohamed NourAdam Teluan Fnaz Juhan Laval 194, Manara Mnemum man Damamela Pusan Bands! Damansata 50490 Kuala Lumpuv 1 no nu» cousmucnon comuuv arm v woo mm cnov [2015] ecu 706 2. GUAM YEIK snN. arm. V HJ. MOHD. NOOR BIN. nu. {zuoq MLJU 106 3 sEN| JAVA sun END 5. ANORV DATO‘ HJ AHMAD ununzn NJ PUTEH A AMOR [2019] 1 cu 713 4 Itsanvmnn mm: Krilhnln I. Anor v. up cnu Lnong E On (2015; 1 ms 547 5 PUNCAK ALAM nousma sDN END (FORMERLV KNOWN As BUKIT CERAKAH DEVELOPMENT sou BHD) v MENYA cousmucnou sou BHD J. ANOR [2014] 1 MLJ 257 5 CUBIC ELECTRONICS sun BHD (IN LIQUIDAYIDN) v MARS 1’ELEcouIuuNIcAnoNs SDN BHD [2019] 6 MLJ 15 7. SIM CHIC HUATV woue TED FUl[19B3]1 MLJ 151 sw knzwfinwzw mama as W; Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. mm.“-y mm; mm. VII .mNa pm 7 swl CHIO HUAT VWONG TED FUI 1193311 MLJ151 a BERJAVA TIMES SQUARES sou END (FORMERLV KNOWN As EERJAVA DITAN SDN EHD) V M CONCEPT SDN arm [2010] 1 MLJ 597 9 cualc ELECTRONICS sou BHD (IN LIOUIDATION) V MARS 'rELEcoMMuuIcArIoNs snu EHD [2019] 2 cm 723 sw knzwfinwzw mama 39 mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. mm.“-y mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm (3) Adakah Phmlli berhmang Irepada Defendan amaunamaun sepemmina yang dmmtul oleh Dalanaan dalam Tunnnan Balls merskI7 Ann 5: din Daplun Mnnkzmah [12] Mnhklmah deflam Fenqnmman In: akan memhenknn II.Isan— allsnn kapadz sallap mu ynng talah drhumhkan plhak-plhlk (I) M-Ian persetujuan d -mm Plaimit flan Dukndln Inrurlkh 11.a1.2n19 -unu “flnnl accaunr" di mun Plninflf nan Dela:-um? [11] Separulng penmraan berdasarxan kenerangan nleh Saks: Plamm Ianu Lam cnse Wom (spay sekelan perlemuan amuax dengnn Data‘ Ir um Kak Khong(SD3|d\pe1abatnya flan pmamunauueuan bersemju unluk menyelesalkan perkari rm flan menandalanganl perakuan ‘final account" [14] SD3 pula ceran menafikzn bahawa Isrdinalnyl penemuan m amm- SP1 Pm mulinya sna m n 01 lam: namuan xersebm, namun kemudian SD3 mennubah ketaringannya kepada mu Lg gg Der umpj mg mg]; ugngan SP1 IN knnyfiawzw mama s -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [15] Davam menflav ketemngan kadua—dua pmak ‘nu, Mahkamah msndapzm terdapat percangg-nan kmeningan yang «swan mbenkan uleh SP1 dan SD3 berkelman xsu penamuan im Nanmn mankaman mendapan sepanjang perbicaraan, keterangan SP1 berkanan Isu penemuan WI! aualan kansislen Dalam keadaan inn‘ mahkamah neriu merumk kapada kepada keterangan-kelevangan sum lain alau Vam-lam keterangan bebas yang ada di hadapan Mihkamah untuk merulal kedua-dua kelemngan tersebm yang manakah wenm mpevcayal aan balsh auenma [15] Da\am menemukan mdmnm saksl-saky lersehut‘ Mahkamah um man merumk kepadl kelarangan saksw Defendan Iallu sopma Tin (SD!) berkanan dengln pensmuan pads 11u92u1e Iersebm SP2 dalnm keterangannyi menyllakan hahawa helnaulldak menghadm perjumpaan amara Pmmw dengan sm telagl mak menaman bahawa nada firumgaan an amara Plgmm darn sna. Da\am keadun ml, mahkamah mandapnm bahawa kelevangan PJnInnlbahawI lamapalnya pequmpaan pads 11 D1 2019 d! pejibal SD3 BGIVIVI Iebvh dlpelclyal barbandlng penafian samatl-mall och sus unam. Tnmlzahan pula peflemuan nu bngi memblncangkln pembaylran pmgak levsebul Kmnngan sun In: dlkunkln lag: dangnn pangasahnrl men 502 hahnwi lerdapll 2 kepmg wk berllnkh 11 D1 2019 bemllii RMIDQDGD din RM 1§D‘DOO yang Ialnh dvmasukkan ka dllam Ikaun Plmrml pad: malam han ylng samu haul diripida pemneangan pm ham yang um: [I7] Dalam mas: yang sama soa ]uga menegaskan banana Wang RM550,000 wng amenkan kepada spa aaalan sehagaw advance payment untuk gap pekena kepada F\ainui yang mengalamw Kesempltan IN knzwfiawzw nvgawym s Nuns smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm kewangan Dada kelvkz Ifu Namurl keterangan mi ma lndak dwsukonq oksh mama-mane kelerangan dokumemav lm’ mama-dl lehm panh wag. apabfli keterangan danpada Plamm hsrsena huklw berlulws bahawa Kurllrlk Oersebul xevan selesan segenuhnya Eu: mos zme Vagi memngan bahiwa vinya admah umuk advent payment bigl mamhayar gap pekena adalah mragw kerana pembayaran yang dukalakan ntu beflaku dalam tahun 2019, rumu se\ang masa 3 Oahun selepas proyek dlswapkan my Ketarangan Am msokang alen keterangan accaunl benankh 11 012019 Namurn Dadendln mampemkankan account |ersebul can menyalakan bahawa wanya adalah updated pro/eel account sahajn dan bukannya l/na/ account Mahkamah ml mehhal kepada dakumsn lemebul aan admah ]e|n: bahawa .a adalah am account kemna lelah ullandalanglnl aleh konsuhan dun kesemua pmax lerlnbat [171 Mankamah mendipali bahaw: akaun cersemn sebagau mm accauntadalah munasablh berhandmq dengan kelerangnn spa bahaw: wanya adawl Pmjecr Account Eerdasarkan ketemngan xenaenut. udak tevdapal langsung eaman bahavm ianya adalah Pm/sc!AL1:aunr Tuada langsung jugs calatan bahawi ianya auaxar. belswlalsemeniara alau Iwdak dwmuktamadkan Terdapal yuga kelerangan bahawa plojek Iersebul belah swap da\am mm 2016 manakala penyedlasn finalacoouv W Ielah amuat selepas mu Mahkamah mendapalv bahaw: sccaunlherlankh 11 01 2019 ada\ah final accwnr yang le\an mpersetujul cleh pihak-pwhak dan bukannya salu Prtysclllncounl Sekvranya wa mempaknn Project Amount bagl syarikal Defendan, mengapa perlu dilandsnangam olen P\amM bag: pengesammyav Tmdakan pihak-pmak mensndalanganlnya adalah Mas IN knnyfiawzw Wqawyxan 1 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm .a merupakan final account prqek Iersabul yang telah mpersemnn, Iambahan pure tevdap_aI mlakan unmk mguranggn bayaran Q ek yang digersetu ui nleh Plamm. [201 Hujahan Defendan melalui keterangnn Sm bzhawa account befllrlkh 11 I 2019 bukln fiI!B/ account |Pen:ku:n muklamad) tatapi hanyalflh Pnyeci Account yang dxkemlskml pads 11 12019 adalah bementangan dangnn dokumen Cenebul Mahknmah Hulk menenrna kstemngan din htulhin Defender: bnhawa Ianyi makah Pm1sv:fAL'c11un! IVII kevana account larsehnt Huh mamenuhi sysn-at til bawah Klaus: 58- 59 Komrak tersebul Fmzal account telah dvkeluarkan flan disahkln aleh pmak Jumtelz |Konsu|tan Frojek) flan dvpersetujui nlan pihak-puhak nan: sebarang keleringan bahawa pmak Defendan lalah membantah kapada pengeluaran sun Perakuan Slap (cenmcaxa M Cnmplellon and Cnmphanoel ccc; Ievsebut kepada Konsunan Maka Plhak nevendan Udak lag: boleh mempemkalkan kandungan ccc Oersebut dan jugs Jumlah yang penu mhayar dlbawah ccc lersebm kepada Plalnnl Dlpenumnknn socaunl benarikh 19 cc 2019 sepem beriku| IN knz\yS4wE1 nwqawybn A man smnw ...n.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm ...m‘. . ..,. , ¢ .-~4r«v= av sm krItYY54wEMP-1B|PybD 9 «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! ‘ ‘unfit A ...m...m .. R‘ sm krIt‘Y54wEMPQB|P1bD m «M. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

NA-22C-2-02/2022

PLAINTIF 1. ) NG GEOK SENG 2. ) NG GEOK TONG DEFENDAN TAG INNOVATION (M) SDN BHD

Rayuan ini adalah terhadap Keputusan Mahkamah yang telah menolak permohonan Defendan di Lampiran 90 untuk penzahiran dokumen-dokumen yang dikatakan ada dalam milikan plaintif-plaintif.

12/01/2024

YA Puan Wan Fadhilah Nor Wan Idris

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b8fba8d9-1ade-4065-833a-f33f05b75e7f&Inline=true

12/01/2024 16:29:06 NA-22C-2-02/2022 Kand. 117 S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 2aj7uN4aZUCDOvM/Bbdefw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m\—22c—2—u2/2u22 Kand. J17 mm/2224 ,5-19 ca mum mmxuun moo: mun nu sznsuam nl usasru ssulaluu DARUL xnusus. muvsu emuum Ma - >u.22n:.24:zm22 mun ms lNNDVA1'IONlM)SuN aw (No.SVARIKAY:2MuImu9311(!nau2z-P) vsluvu mu 1 we szox sine we m;o«ousm.sau; 2. Ms GEDK mus (Mn Kw 151115415-513!) . HESPOMDEI4-Rasvonnsn ALISAN wsuenaxuum vsnesmuu I Rzyuan IN mm Iamadap Kepulusan Mahkamah yang man meumak pemmhnnsn Delenaan m Lamplran so unmk pemmmn daxumen-ankumeu yang dukalakan ad: damn mum wu.amuu=xam< N zzlvumazucnom/swam mm Sum IHIWDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm 2 Yunwhn m. mm» mm. .. am... mnmlln Fu......ma....« ..nm.p Delendan mas klgagalln m...a... xehku kumrnktcr ylng man dnannk ....m... xnlu sun. Plflganug ... M...» an 9 2n.a....mx.my.:pmum p.u,.xm.a...m ....:x n....nm......m....... Ismpnh yaw dweuokan ownlnk :...a........; v................ Llmplnn ID 3 Fe/muhorun .4... news... ... ....... unmk ............. m.......4m...... ........ . Kuulunan benuus 4...... M1411: a........y. sew... bagIl<a11a—hu|a p........g.. ...m.. .........g M mam nu. am... ....am us. Now .4. z.......... W. Inmahut . w........ humus ....p.... M... Bmanmya s......». bag pdan -Mas N Ka 2—2wo2v .. mm. yang ............m. um pangakuan ..a.......... ox... Magus am»... Semmban bag! .,.....m..... wvuk .m..p..x.. ........... .35.... ..«.s..... um.» u...p.... plkzv ......... .......... $.54... bow. menullau manlah kabnwnn .. . Alnsawahszn pemmmn um. Beiendm . . uevm... mempau nanam m....m.v:....1.v man memhma slrukmv bumhuna pens meta! a. rung...mux.na.nmm.n...q....a..ya..g ...=...ae. hpak projek mubul Ruangun um; um mm. Iersebux am... 5... zzmnuazucnovwaxsnam 2 «w... 5.... .......wu. .. ..... .. van; .. nrimnnflly mm: ........ VII mum W... 31 can yum] dummln Mmkarnah bemandangan banuwa hmnkln pm-x Deflemin mavnlmvknn pelmuhuuln VII! mmnan hemuuan umnk me\e«g.m=ng.nx... mu me«.m1-nam wmam... m. um dwmlbcan pm an akhnr, mlv new kmarw -sum uebelum vemuman mmullkin 32 Ah: a\uarv—a|aiin levsebul Manxamm berplndlngan blmwa ma xeblrang 35:: am mm on m Delmmlun-n Detuvflln umuk pnnzxmvan flnkumelmckuman ml Gan am.» nu mam-mskan mm nummhnnlu Bey!-man m umpm so am: dlngan kc: amm. 12J.vm.In 2024 vs IJRIJNJAVA xmmmu un mam mass: seams»: ueezxu smauuu mam xuusus Pculum no-yu’ mm v r cu... 5. pmm Nu as Jihn 52 use. my cm: Snmmhun 2‘ man Seremhan. rbqen Semmlan Plgulm n..p....a...- Teluan 5»! Lee 3. ca N5 139 (I-Nloav), Jalan Ouek xa‘ Deng mam Seremlnn New Semmlzn sw zzlvumzzucnovm/axsnam H mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm sw zzrrumazucnovm/axsnam -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm mmpam mm WI: memam Vin perllman mm. Iumumn _u. mum Pwanuwlanm msndakm Iavdapil kebocuvan Mr y-nu dwahbulmn «so. keen "awn: dofendan dawn mm mama .‘ a..u.;..m piplrv um..." bumombor 'MasNKa2—2I/2021' yang mam m upak pemmuan, idlhh an-pan mu... Wm... pa... mum man d|\n\usk|rvd\s:nIlun Dada uhm mu m mam" WI man «mm pad: mm 2022 mam Plimm-Plnmmnnnk wavmuna memvhdkun mm: an-«em pemun n N am. mm: mm. W ummm....... m. mm vehvan kzrana pembmaan yang ham Wm bemamurwkwnan akin membunlxkan lad keadun bumbung mm. man man merwuban ma...‘ mm; bemenaan 4... keadnn asalrlyn m.x..« vembmaan him barsehm V m.m:n..m.: mg.» mervyarlturwlkan k.er1:—ken: u. an noggin mambenkun dokumvvdckuman nerarzn dengan km‘: W mm Dflendan man. penzamvin dukwnendnkuman W aw.“ m. akin nlmh-nkzrl mlldumal yang bum manpepskan Iunruhn wamw avau mlnyrlxmn ku mm... 5 Anmnpnn umnk Fmm!-P\:mm . ‘ Dnkumuuiokuman yang mpomm mun udak mzvan an mu mpemm dawn nnaam Im u Dolwmalvdukumen yang «Wm mm. I/flak mpenmn umuk membanlu Nnye\esaAIn as near: aau atzu membamu umuk menlmalkan kos sm z:nuM4azucDovM/axsnam 3 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm vbefendan my menjmlmkarswbran kwenuan my m-numkln dekumendofimmen yang dwuhon was-wuam umuum 5 serum» uummn mmwlum flan menem: nous permohnrun pmak o.u.na.mu.mw..y. 90 men: .nam..mm bevkaman clan mm memb-an a... murulm p..,,»..,.n.mm.......n mm sen: mmm yang um duknmukuun. M-nkamnn IN mammusknn ans wnbangan k.ebav:rvgka\Ian um. plmmhnuill mu oevemn a\an\p1van w dlmlak dectgan Kc: muuma UNDANGJJNDANG 7 Pevmahunan lampwmn so adalah sam pamnhnnan 5;... DI!-ndm mmk mm muuarurxan am.....mm.n ..p.m yang dun mkln 4. .«.. M, mm id: um ...m..,. mm um. .....m.. a. ..... Detendin ram: beqanlung Kevan: potumukarmmran 2. ma.» 3 KKM yum mempemnlukhn V ‘:11; suopcm sun,-:4 In the pmvwovu amusme ...a olrwes ; and a. live cam my .1 any urns Dmeranypany In . cause ormalter (mm mm by W, arrgmfltmg summuns DI ulvrerwrse; :0 M mm by making and umvngonznyomorpany-hslnflhs ducumtnrx wvmvvarearnave been mm. posseswm, cusrmr/nrpawnrmdmayalllm M. am: msubsequenwaran urowlum m makn nu mg .n Imdlwrvnnmngsum . M “.1 Iogervea copy msrsoron rm ulmrpany sw zznmuazucnovm/axsnam I «M! smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! I0 rm documsnts mm a parry m 3 cans or mans! may he entered m dnswvIIundIrpan_L7vapnI1Jaruaslottows 1.; modocumdnls an mm. lhdpnlryullas amnnevy, and (Lu ma flocumuvfs wmm mnId— m ndvcrs-ry.lmv.1Iv>.:awnc-A11, (:4)-5.1»/Iraq’ Moo! mmsumm cuss, mm; mum snummpllfyk run‘ a Mam-4: Denmluk-n W Mllilmih mam.“ kuln mm... unmk memmmahxan penznmnn flnknmeudnkumen Dun: nu mm mngmm. Hg seknrlfifi Mahkaman new-may-.. mm. nenzxmlln dnkumen.dnkumu\ Izrxebul malah mu Imluk membamu p=\nD\aIn mu ks: 9 Pnnslv umanrundlrw ma tevmkau flnllm meneulukan sum: m um membevuvkan Alan menehksesualu Demmhonan urwukpenlahvrm aakumen mnlah seven! ma dvnyaukan aanam m mamnamn s/5 Mamumu V M wan Sled and [was] Muu as‘ [1394] 2 an 561.d\mina Edgar mew Jr (kemnmanny: rob Man mmaaaman - mmuamen yung pemmg unluk saw vermohunan penzamran mm 7 a) mum mus! Dc 2 dncwnalvt an m flocumsnr mus! a. mlvvsnc ...a :1 m. flocumanl mm mm Dean M ». pnstossron, custody olpawsr olmspwsonaaamsl wnom ms nmsrlamvscavary » mm - «a Mammamuaa MENIIAIK new: kss Mahfar hm Amae V Jenn Megan Sam and [anon 4 ML! as. ex pemvmn1w>y.ana menvat-bx sm 7arrumazucDovM/axsnam 5 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm ‘our Ruh: m cm H-an cm mo hum dbwvery In document um. mu Mzvlnl «a nr mm: nu ma unual mun m inputs‘ 1: Bemasaman -nunnruwm m aux‘ Imam um penemu my memberunnn sum penmah penzahwan dlbuixan an. n um. m. auknmsndckumen yang mpohen uuuhh rulnwan dmgan ww din rm. yxnq maulhm pamkaxan mm mnawnax sum. m doltummaiukunun yum * :2 Damn mzmemukln um nun dokummdvkumen yum mpehnn zdalah mwan kupldx hmikzn wl. M-mnmnn memjuk kepadn aamvam rung lnrdapal flldalam m..«=«.. nun yaw us» awaux 13 Mevmml xemmms nus: wag an: m fvadapan mxhklnuh, mm... Pxmmflfiuxmv mum Deocenaan dengan saw sum pcngunuverilun mm n-mum soazuu my man dnawadian Merv P1amM—Pl:muI mm: Deienflnn umuk menyupkan sllu prqek pembmaan dalam namwn ylng dwpznelujm u Mama memadx a.m..n mm..n.‘..nc n.r..».. m...u.,. rem. magi! my..pm xanma. msebm dalam uempm ylng aw.v.pu.,. w...-W. gm um." mun man amm «ma. uma... uhmggn I512n15 Selmn knlawlhn n..nm.p»mu man menaakwa bahawa mm... mm cum am. mun-mun an «en: lsasebul sehlnugi menyeoamn brdapalkemumn pm. sw zznmuazucnovm/axsnam 6 «ms smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! knhweua mu man dlmvkan Salah salu aanpaaa Kaucalnn mama pm max wsebuladalah kabcwlan pad: buubunu bemenaan :5 um. um kn husbxm Mahkzmlh m-udipah Bahama mum ulama rang mm .mx._n an-u mum m m. . . S-ml .a. u¢m....,.g.x m..m«.n pm5sk1arxwu|d:lam ttfllpuhying m.m......mm 309 mm mm. I5 4 2015 uhmggamlnyuhabkan mam" ‘. sm. t:rdnp!|ke1LInIhn-keumlxn pan. mupk mun-A um am: a. kaucmn mm." m n mmnn Men km..." mm." dmm mennlnnknn mm. mm merekn ‘a Sermsny: Mahkamah mekrulkcvnaa vevmuhmnn Devemnn amnm an my memohon Pefllahvran dnkunrendokwum seoerh yang ursmur-man amend: F\aInnI—Pla\nm noxumemaemcn vans mwmn mm kelumsan «mum. Minus Bandarayl Seremban vans man anpemem oleh P\amM—F\amn! mm menlahnkan boenarkoena pen-asangan slluklur aumauna [ems meqal amnm mm nu float um pemxman Inlsebul Ruanqan bersebux adalan menlflakan mm ynna mauam mu pemkaun mm Iummzn mm at man: P\ammI—PIannInY mmmwa manna: kgbawnn aw rm aambanran clan keauaun keqa+<eqa defendan mm kemzk oerdahmu sm z:nuM4azucDovM/axsnam 2 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm <7 Malannuryadlnunuq .n mum mhnm pembmunbampada humhung hrsebul halkamungkwun lknn msnnmknn xaadun bumbtlw taersehul mm mm cm rudukuman-drtxumsn hemuunnpemmnaanhumbunn oamm.a...ma‘.m din ...n...m.m.m hm mnmbelehkan Mahkanuh mamumskan dsngnruuhs um: .1. Iveboeoran pad: bumbuny tam” dnalvbalkan Nah Venalxzqx Dstannin ma muammp+<ar.ayangaa«uum.maxanu.m= mm. m 13 Deiuudan nnendakwa Danna PI:mMrFl:wmf a.g.,. mellyemhullylkan mauna uu Kenn: puuamnn duknlvlurvdnkumen yum a-pom W akin membenkan mnklumat klnadl Ddurmm ylng Dd-ah memqaxknn Iumulzn wamm alau menyukong bus maman us Meoelm nu;-Mu;-n ynny mu ankemukakan me» Deleman Mahkaman meodapan mm Defemnn helm max unmk menunyukkan banana: flukumandokumen yum: mpchm man hemnlan dengan Hmakan m. 2n s.m...m mung.” n.m..v~>m..u: menanan mam jauipzn mzrukl pmpk .,.ma.n ma ham m adalnh nmjek yang mmuhkarv pad: an-m zm (mum pan «.7: nrnmx .awapan mama mum F\|\mw—P\mn1r1;ug:. prmex mm.“ m. m. kanzn lanusung dengan ram den nu ylrvg msmldw vumknin damm buss mu 1: Im mlleni ynng memadl pamman imam P1aIrvoI—PIamM am Dd-udln mam lmdikln M ..1m bemanam aengan xe;,a«=«.a mg Isiah dI|a\:nkIn man mam“ mlnwih munxyang beflungsung din um" Qflliiservnvgga Iahun 2015 am z:mm4azucDovM/axsnam x “Nuns saw ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! 2: Manama‘ men Demlwuan yam Dam m hnnyi mmuhkan wabm 1 unun suave: Deflendan menyhvkan ma meveka maawan kanlnk terseeul um man man aanpaua 'Cemficats oIFamma( can»pos4mn- benaukn 24 2 ms yang Man awuauan kapidl Delnndan dwbawah kunlnk mama 2: Kean:-dul max". nllhn dun pvqit yxng borlzmun on ma man anma salu um: 2: M: n muqlnv pinning-n Mlmumlh blhawl nblllng kaaulxn yang «um. mun mmyebubkln klbucmln mmlmng -knun din knaA In kin:-kn]: Deiamnn mg ttrflnhuhn mun xikenmpun oven pmwam perummg Pmmnl dun Mm am... mm oammn aavanaan 25 Manknmh mermuk uepnaa sunmum mum Demmwmvmunuvng mnm sun! bensvvkh zsnzms flan Pelumima Sena (mm em 7.‘ Afia-val Juwapan F\um:V— hump W41 dan sum Bemankh 12/1I2u17 aan Armek Nmmln senanm {ml-nkekh P2AlIdIv\(J|waDInF\ImnV- Imp ma) 2s Eeraasarkan dukunmdukumn u. nus Mannunan rmpamman seea.--v mnmanmeranaan yanv neman aenaan uucauannauwan yana «man pan: ma humhurw Ievlahuu taehh mkenalpisn dan dbuluskan seoaiimuana seninl maman yang dlnynlakan dahm sum»:-Am bsrkmnnn mnmnan [ugh be-uanuanm hnhiwl sum an.m:m.....n;-ausnn unkzmuklkin unmkduamk-n rm .1... Kmerlngnn dnllm kg: mu syn z:nuM4azucDovM/axsnam 9 “Nuns s.n.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. mn.u-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-mm 27 am an u.mm... mp.»-W... mm. mum kgaazatan ma mum man: yangman mm." mm puundnng-palundmg bamenaan yang aim rnanpm ..u yang m.n.n a. ... um." W om km 1.‘... mu rang riauln mum mm. dengin ksnannn Van: Man a.:.x..n.m duh u.:.m... am." Saul mg.mm.n mm mama mg mevangmml mwn a.. m... 201: sehmagnzme 23 mm". pemaunnzn m..m :......m..g pm: mam mmilwln mm nan um yang ham «mum nlah nmm. mm! ...a. mum ma dmspak pmjek msebm mm prank yang mm u... an. ..umg kmlfiu am." my... yang an: :14 mm" uhmum-n IN 25 Main manual nrlrmp . mmx nermcnonm pennhvran aekuman bahawa amm yang mm umuk mmm .a.m dntmmen yang Mann .1... msmpurwalkzwnndevvuinhmnkanyangn Idvhadapaw Mahkamulv Namunblgm u.u..m.n n..m..,.n Danna Devendnn ma menunmdtan ......ng u..n...m.y. dnkum-rvnukumun yilw dwpdmn sepem sum «mm... mm Bandavan s...«.m W... ...,.w,. mm; m. rersebux dengan max... yang ads .1. mdnpan mafltlmih W 30 Delemlnn ma gagalmembenkan whammy panjaiaunyang munnublhylng rmnuruukkan mm dakumsvrdckumen rang dlpohw Mu mm. ldwln an bcixznan d-ngxn nmm m. sw zznmuazucnovm/axsnam 1» «ms smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-526-09/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) MOMENTUM AUTOPARTS SDN BHD 2. ) WONG LI LIAN DEFENDAN 1. ) TOH GIM HEOK 2. ) TAN THIAM ENG

The Plaintiff’s application to safeguard the confidential business information of Momentum Autosports is specific as particularised in Appendix A to Enc 3. As such, this Court allows the Plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunction as per Enc 3 and grant order in terms of prayers sought for against Sally Toh only. The application against Eric Tan is dismissed. Eric Tan however is reminded that he ought not to be involved in any dealings related to the business of Momentum Autosports until the disposal of the trial. As per prayer 4 this Court gives liberty to apply. Costs in the cause.

12/01/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8c6dbb70-23a1-49e4-8609-7fde4eb97b51&Inline=true

IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL CASE NO: WA-22NCvC-526-09/2023 BETWEEN 1. MOMENTUM AUTOPARTS SDN BHD [COMPANY No: 200201000378/568041-H] 2. WONG LI LIAN [NRIC No: 830114-14-5930] …. PLAINTIFFS AND 1. TOH GIM HEOK [NRIC No: 520612-08-5420] 2. TAN THIAM ENG [NRIC No: 601008-10-6541] .… DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 12/01/2024 16:04:38 WA-22NCvC-526-09/2023 Kand. 72 S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Enc 3: Plaintiffs’ Application for an interim injunction [1] Through the cause papers, this case concerned a cross- generational relationship between two women joined through marriage. The Plaintiffs’ pleaded facts disclosed tensions beyond formal business relationship over autonomy. This suit filed by the Plaintiffs show signs of the struggles with roles and status, and the layered emotions tied to family bonds. [2] The Second Plaintiff (Lilian Wong) is the sole director and shareholder of the First Plaintiff (Momentum Autoparts) that specialises in the sale of, amongst others, motor racing vehicle products. She was appointed on 1.3.2023 and the wife of Lee Sandek prior to his demise several months ago on 11.7.2023. When he was alive, he was the managing director and sole shareholder of Momentum Autoparts. The deceased founded and incorporated the Momentum Autoparts on 30.11.2009 then known as Speed n Safe Racing Sdn Bhd. [3] The First Defendant (Sally Toh) is the mother of the deceased, Lilian Wong’s mother-in-law. She was also an employee of Momentum Autoparts for seven months. From January 2023 she was asked to assist the deceased at work. Her task was more than just that of a personal assistant to the deceased. She had dealt with Momentum Autoparts’ business matters too. Vide the evidence disclosed in the affidavits, she had obtained and was in possession of confidential information of the business of Momentum Autoparts when she carried out her works there. As the mother to the late managing director, she seemed to have access to information she required in the office during her employment of seven months there. The Plaintiffs had pleaded that the Defendants were business partners and by association, members of the Rotary Club Bukit Bintang. [4] Pursuant to the Grant of Probate issued by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 9.8.2023 the deceased’s entire shareholding of Momentum Autoparts was transferred to Lilian Wong. This suit filed by the Plaintiffs in September 2023 alleged that Sally Toh misappropriated and misused S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal confidential company information of Momentum Autoparts. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants conspired to injure them and divert the business of Momentum Autoparts to themselves. The Plaintiffs’ prayers included declaration of those contentions and a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from using, disseminating, disclosing, divulging or otherwise confidential information of the business of Momentum Autoparts. Trial dates have been set. [5] Together with their writ and statement of claim, the Plaintiffs had filed Enc 3 which is an application under Order 29 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC) for an interim injunction which is the same as that prayed for in their statement of claim (SoC). The Plaintiffs claimed that the status quo ought to be preserved awaiting the trial as there were real risks of loss and damage to Momentum Autoparts that would be irreparable. Serious Issues to be tried [6] The trite law as laid out in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193; [1995] 1 CLJ 293 is instructive in assessing this application. The first threshold is that there must be bona fide serious issues to be tried. The Plaintiffs argued there are serious issues regarding breach of confidentiality, conspiracy, interference with business, etc. that require determination at trial. Sally Toh disputed this, arguing the emails in question did not disclose confidential information or show conspiracy/interference by her to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. The merits of this application thus lie in determining whether the emails contained sensitive information and pointed to improper conduct on the part of the Defendants that warrant an interim stay pending trial. [7] The Plaintiffs took issue with the email Sally Toh sent a day after the passing of her son. Lilian Wong was not copied in the mail. It was more to announce the sudden sad change and that business would proceed as usual. She had included herself as the contact person together with two other officers of Momentum Autoparts. She indicated that she was part of the management. Sally Toh’s words were “I will be writing over the weekend to answer any of your clarifications as I will be taking charge of S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the company.” She made no mention of Lilian Wong the sole director and shareholder of Momentum Autoparts in her offer of assurance to the business partners and the customers at large. What further raised eyebrows were also the fact that she did not loop in Lilian Wong in the email, and that Sally Toh did this almost immediately after the passing of her son whilst she was said to be in grief. [8] Sally Toh’s defence that Lilian Wong had authorised her to manage Momentum Autosports is implausible as that proposal only arose on 25.7.2023, way after that email was issued and the announcements by Momentum Autosports were made. [9] As to the announcements released by Momentum Autosports, on their own, this Court does not agree with the Plaintiffs’ contention that they amounted to improper conduct as alleged. The announcement by Momentum Autosports on 12.7.2023 which is the day after the deceased’s passing had only introduced Sally Toh as the point of contact. It stated that “She will be the main point of contact should you need any clarifications, or you can also contact us at the office.” In the email, there is no hijacking of company’s affairs by Sally Toh all to herself. The other announcement on 20.7.2023 thanking customers, suppliers and all for the condolences did not amount to improper conduct either. Since Sally Toh had signed off as corporate affairs, she can be seen to have done her duty. However, they must be viewed in totality with all the actions taken by Sally Toh. This Court will not assess them in isolation. [10] Lilian Wong averred that she did not agree to Sally Toh’s offer to take over her shareholdings for RM1,500,000. On 30.7.2023 Sally Toh had tendered her resignation. Evidence show that she had taken further actions in connection to Momentum Autosports thereafter. [11] The attention of this Court now turns to the email dated 22.8.2023 from one of their suppliers, Endless Sports which the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs argued that it confirmed their suspicions. That said email referred to an email from Sally Toh the week before which meant that it was sent after she had resigned and left the employment of Momentum S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Autoparts. It is quite apparent that following the email from Sally Toh, some uncertainty and confusion arose as it wrote: “Would like to ask, who is the management of Momentum now, and we need to renew the contact between Endless and Momentum as Mr Sandek has left. And do you have the Organization chart of Momentum? If possible, we would like to know who is who.” [12] There is a trailing email from Sally Toh on 13.8.2023 showed that she did contact Endless Sports. She informed them of the history of Momentum Autosports where she stated that the business venture “was a shared vision between my son, Lee Sandek, and me. Together, we created something remarkable, something that left an indelible mark on the industry and the lives of many.” She informed them that she had stepped down and away from Momentum Autosports which was according to her “the right decision for the future of the company.” However, in the same breath she stated as follows: “I am excited to introduce to you Eric Tan, my new partner in this journey. Eric and I share the same goals, values, and vision that Lee Sandek and I held dear. His expertise, passion, and commitment make him a natural fit to carry forward the legacy that we began together. I firmly believe with Eric’s leadership, our partnership will continue to grow and thrive, honoring Lee Sandek’s memory and the values that have guided us.” [13] Sally Toh ended the email thanking Endless Sport for their “steadfast support and tireless efforts throughout this journey, and I hope you will continue to us support us in this new venture.” So, from the reading of the email, it looked like there is a new venture that she claimed the Second Defendant (Eric Tan) was to helm. She had also referred repeatedly to the deceased and the successful business relationship Momentum Autosports had with Endless Sport during the deceased’s lifetime. From the reading she averred to Momentum Autosports now no longer having S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the vision, objectives, and values with the demise of the deceased. To this Court’s mind, this undoubtedly may have contributed to the confusion and uncertainty of Endless Sport towards Momentum Autosports. The only result is harm to Momentum Autosports’ business with Endless Sport. [14] This same email was also sent to Alpinestars another supplier of Momentum Autosports. A later email on 3.9.2023 further illustrated her intention to do harm to the Plaintiffs. With her offer of a private city tour to the Head of Sales, she wrote “At this moment, I hope this private arrangement may remain confidential to Lilian as I don’t want her to feel awkward for it is the promise Sandek and I wish to carry on this hospitality with you.” [15] She was insistent as she wrote again on 18.9.2023, this time the email she copied to Eric Tan. Alpinestars declined offers from Sally Toh. [16] Sally Toh’s actions were telling as they were marked ‘Private and Confidential’ and she knew who to sent to in those companies that showed she had to a certain extent used the knowledge acquired whilst with Momentum Autosports. [17] Information of periodic renewal of exclusive distributorship for the country and also Brunei, on a balance of probabilities, must have also been acquired and applied in the communications, from the employment and having had worked closely with the dealings whilst with Momentum Autosports. Her composition in the emails illustrated that she is familiar with the trade and business of Momentum Autosports. [18] This Court is inclined to agree with the contentions by the Plaintiffs that the Sally Toh had executed a stealthy campaign or rather took actions to divert the business of Momentum Autoparts and/or to cause harm to it and/or Lilian Wong by taking advantage of the confidential business information she had acquired through her employment with Momentum Autosports. There was no necessity for her to inform either Endless Sports S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal or Alpinestars of her resignation from Momentum Autosports as she was only in their employment for seven months. [19] After the emails sent by Sally Toh, Endless Sports offered a new non-exclusive distribution contract to Momentum Autosports which was limited to Malaysia. It had lost its exclusive distributorship for Malaysia. It had also lost its entire distributorship to Brunei. Whether it was a coincidence or as a direct result of Sally Toh’s act is a serious issue to be tried. [20] What is apparent here is that there are more than one issue to be tried, aside from whether the information assessed by Sally Toh was confidential information. (See Saltman Engineering Co Ltd & Ors v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 413, Svenson Hair Center Sdn Bhd v Irene Chin Zee Ling [2008] 8 CLJ 386, Ace Capital Growth Sdn Bhd v Kua Kee Koon & Ors [2021] MLJU 2118, Schmidt Scientific Sdn Bhd v Ong Han Suan [1997] 5 MLJ 632, Worldwide Rota Dies Sdn Bhd v Ronald Ong Cheow Joon [2010] 8 MLJ 297). Whether they were misappropriated is another. As to whether she had breached her duties owed to Momentum Autosports. Whether they were shared with Eric Tan is another and whether they both had misused it and had conspired to injure the Plaintiffs are other issues. There are a few more – all to be adjudicated at full hearing. Balance of convenience [21] The Plaintiff’s respectful submission is that the balance favours the granting of the interim injunction to prevent further harm, given that they have already suffered some loss of business exclusivity. Sally Toh countered that the balance lies against the interim injunction since she claimed there is no evidence the confidential information was actually disclosed or misused. However, the nature of the emails and alleged business impact answered this matter. S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [22] This Court finds that the balance tilts in the favour of granting the interim injunction to protect the status of the Plaintiffs from being inflicted further harm. This Court is satisfied that this element is fulfilled. See Mohamed Zainuddin bin Puteh v Yap Chee Seng [1978] 1 MLJ 40, Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 193; [1995] 1 CLJ 293. Adequacy of damages [23] Sally Toh contended that monetary compensation would suffice since the core allegation is around confidentiality breach leading to business loss. The adequacy depends on the extent quantifiable loss is shown. The Supreme Court’s decision in Alor Janggus Soon Seng Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v Sey Hoe Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 241 was cited by the Plaintiffs. It is found that the loss of revenue may be difficult to quantify as it concerned the distributorship of Brunei as well as the non-exclusive distributorship of Malaysia. Conclusion [24] An injunction is an extraordinary remedy, so the case must cross a high threshold of establishing likelihood of harm. After a thorough examination of the available evidence, it becomes compellingly evident that certain actions were intended or planned that would adversely affect the business and its director. This conclusion is drawn not merely from speculative reasoning, but from a concrete analysis of the facts and circumstances presented. The evidence collectively points to an undeniable intent to undertake actions that could be detrimental to Momentum Autosports, the business her very own son had strived for during his lifetime. [25] At this juncture the Plaintiffs have shown the loss in such a short space of time. However, upon closer scrutiny, this Court has yet to see the involvement of Eric Tan but for him being copied in one or two emails. There is no evidence of his partake with Sally Toh although she may have S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal claimed that they were both on a new venture. It remains to be seen whether he had misappropriated or misused with knowledge that it was confidential information of Momentum Autosports’ business with the intention to harm the Plaintiffs. [26] The Plaintiff’s application to safeguard the confidential business information of Momentum Autosports is specific as particularised in Appendix A to Enc 3. As such, this Court allows the Plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunction as per Enc 3 and grant order in terms of prayers sought for against Sally Toh only. The application against Eric Tan is dismissed. Eric Tan however is reminded that he ought not to be involved in any dealings related to the business of Momentum Autosports until the disposal of the trial. This Court allows a longer time period than three days for Sally Toh to furnish her disclosure to the Plaintiffs as to the confidential information and documents. As per prayer 4 this Court gives all parties the liberty to apply. [27] Costs in the cause. DATED 21 DECEMBER 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiffs: James Khong Yoon Hong, Ryan Ng, Kok Hao Ying and Toh Gim Heok S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal T/n James Khong For the 1st Defendants: Vincent Ong Liang Jie together with Mok Yang Yee T/n Tan Norizan & Associates For the 2nd Defendants: Amelia Marie Gasper together with Nor Natasya Amli Mahfuz T/n G. Ragumaren & Co. S/N cLttjKEj5EmGCX/eTrl7UQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AA-22NCC-11-06/2020

PLAINTIF 1. ) AFFIN HWANG INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 2. ) AFFIN BANK BERHAD 3. ) BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD 4. ) MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES BERHAD DEFENDAN 1. ) ANIMATION THEME PARK SDN BHD 2. ) PCB DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) RSG MAPS SDN BHD 4. ) RAMELLE ARSHAM BIN RAMLI 5. ) STEPHEN ALLAN SANDERSON

Civil Procedure – striking out – allegation of conspiracy – whether clearly pleaded – whether bare allegations.Whether elements of conspiracy properly pleaded – whether the counter claim is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process. Rules of Court 2012 – O.18 r.19(1) (a), (b) & (d)

12/01/2024

YA Dato' Bhupindar Singh A/L Gurcharan Singh Preet

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e8df389b-87bd-420c-be06-df3d2c151bf9&Inline=true

12/01/2024 16:03:19 AA-22NCC-11-06/2020 Kand. 110 S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N mzjf6L2HDEKBt89LBUbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal M—22ncc—11—n6/2020 Kand. J10 mm/2224 .b'0]';9 DALAM MAHKAMAH T|NGGl MALAVA DI IPOH BALAM NEGERI PERAK‘ MALAYSIA GUAMAN N0 AA-22Ncc-11—us/zozu ANTARA . AEFIN HWANG INVESYMENT BANK BERNAD . AFFIN BANK EERHAD . BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA EERHAD . MALAYSIA DEBT vEuTuREs BERHAD PLAINTIE- PLAINYIF DAN . ANIMATION THEME PARK SDN BHD . PCB DEVELOPMENT sun BHD . RS6 MAPS sou END [Dahu\unyB mkervatl sebagnl Sanderww Prngecl De»4e\opmem (Malayan) Sdn am . RAMELLE ASHRAM BIN RAMLI . DARREN JEFFREV MCLEAN STEPHEN ALLAN SANDERSON .. DEFENDANVDEFENDAN malam Tmdakan Asaw RAMELLE ASHRAM BIN RAMLI PLAINTIF DAN 1. AFFIN HWANG INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD 2. AFFIN BANK EERHAD 3‘ BANK PEMEANGUNAN MALAVSIA EERHAD 4. MALAYSIA DEBT VENTURES EERHAD 5. PCB DEVELOPMENT SDN EHD 6. STEPHEN ALLAN SANDERSON DEFENDAII-DEFENDAN (Tunlulan Bawasy JUDGMENT lnlmduclion [1] This VS an apphcahon by me 1“ |o 4” uevenaams m we amended cauntevcmm under Order 15 me 19m(a), (h) and ((1) ov me Rmes on com: 2012 moo‘) |o smxe cm the amended defense and the amended counlevclatm dated 21 10 2020 IN mymLzHDE><a1AMaunq -um smm ...m.mm be used M van; .. nr1g\ruHIy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! [17] Based on the pnnctptes expressed VI tne above cases, I wm now oonstder trre Flnancters‘ appllcallon issues raised by tne Financiers [15] Tne Ftnancters ratsed tne tottowtng grounds In support at tnetr appllcalton to s1nke out Rarnene's amended defence and amended eounterctatrn, narnety tnat (a) tne auegattons ot onnsptracy Delween tne Fmanoxers, PCE Deuetopment and Stephen are sham, aevotd ot pameutars and tnconstetent wttn tne express terms oomaInedm|he1“ and 2"‘ Guarantees, to) Ramene ts estopped trorn anegtngtnat he ts not name to pay tne amount ctatrned and mat the 2"“ Guarantee rs tnvattd and unentorceabtet 14:) tne Fmanclers are not duty bmmd to trwesttgate andror tnautre unto. ar avevsee tne quattty ottne constructton works at tne Theme Park or w assess or iscerlam true true vatue at the conslrucllan rnetenats and tne serutees betore dtsbursemems were made under me Term Loan. and (d) RameHe‘s amended counterclann ts devoid or any cause at admn‘ an abuse at Courl process and ts scandalous, trtvotous and/or vexallous and ought In be struck out 11 SN ntumt_zHDEKBtAB1But:q «mt. s.n.t In-vthnrwm be u... M van; .. nngtrrnuly sun. dun-mm VII mum pans! [15] on the other hand. the learned enuneel tor Rarnelte submnled that (a) Ramelles case agilrlsl the Flnanclels ts netther a sham nor utnnausly unsuslalrlable that l| ought In be struck om‘ (b) Ramelle has Dleaded eulltcrent pamculars ol the conspiracy between the Ftnancterst PCB Development and slephent (G) the 2"" Guarantee Is lllegalt Vold and unenlurceahle as there was lnhmldallont coercton and duress by the ofllbers ol the Flnarlclers ta ensure that Ramelle executed the 2"“ Guarantee Atmrtronally, the 2"“ Guarantee was slgned by Rarnelle m mntraventron 0! schedule 7 and subsenlon 1zA(1 t otthe Flnanclal Services An|2D131‘FSA 2013‘), and (d) the enlorcernent ot the 2"“ Guarantee ts uncansclonabls because the Flnanclers had actett In baa Iatlh and tn breach 0! thetr duty at care to Ramelle Analysts and landings ol thls Court [20] It Is Rarnelte pleaded case that the Ftnancters are Irlvalved tn the Gonsplracy wllh PCB Development and stephen The execullon M the 2" Guarantee by Ramelle purportedly arose «rpm the representallurls made by PCB Development In Ramelle It was then alleged that the eonsptracy alen tnvalvea the Flnarlclsrs Paragraph 5 or the amenueu statement or 11 rn m1.tmL2HDEKBtABtBubQ war. s.n.t n-vlhnrwm r. u... M my r... nflnlhaflly Mthln dun-mm VII mane v-mat defence and paragraph 10 cl me amettaea counlemlalm retates to the attegattons at conspllacy by me Ftnancters (211 It must be aetemttnea Whelhef etmtctent pa cutars cl Donsptracy are pteaaeu trt trte amended statement M aetertce and coutttetctatnt, and ttte affidavtls ttt repty (encls 25 and 42) To eslabltsh a slit!" tor Cor\5D¥mCVt Rameue mus1 ptead the essermal elemems for the (on M conspiracy The Conn ol Appeal In Gall Bak Ming v. Yeah Eng Kong 5. Omar Appeals [2015] I CLJ 451 suoctrtcfly exptatned trte etemettts 0| «rte ton ul cottspttacy "Ital In law the ma olconspt/E0)’ may Iako lwo forms (I) cortspvucy tax unlawm! maarvst and ttt; canxptrucy by lawful mean: A carvswfficy by tmmut means 3 mnsttlured Wm. two or more Dsrsan: comb/rte In cammt! an tmtawmt acl wtm me mlwvharv of tmwtng or amt-g-ng M: taramttm and the act is mm out and me Kflfclvlmlv achieved ttt . corvsptmcy bylawiul means, [hem need nut he an wtlawml act colmmflsd Dy me mtsnttetm Bu! mere /5 an matttottet Iswtmvms/I1 ulplwmg El -pteaonmtent purposrby allmeaonsptmlorx In cause Injury at damage to me prammv. and me 5:11: carried nu! and lhenulflnse achieved {own my Yes V 0/19 and Co Pa; muses) 2 sum 5.77 we strtgapme Court 0-‘ Auhsa/aw 653) ml tn osurvca, lbs key mymdvlnll to be Dmvfin Dy!/19 grattmmtt order to mm and ., puma (acre of me Inn oloansptracy am as Ioflawr tt; an agleemsnl combmalmnt Ilmislslamimgt ovcormsn Dsmesn two at more Dalsoflit m) In comnttt an ac! mm the Irllervlrun to .tt,me nruuse damage to the ptamttm tn.) me act is execulsd and meptamttms rlwmd at st//Iersd damavet and 1; sm MWSLZHDEKBVAMBUBQ “Nair s.tt.t nuvthnrwm be LAIQ4 M my t... ntwtrtnflly mt. dnuuvtnnl VII nF\uNG vtmxt (nu ma ac! axeculedu riot an url/awfu/ad. men u must also be shown that ms mtsnhon to cam m/my or damage m we plaintiff was the pmaomnmn: mm. Wpm /n Ouah Kay Tee (svpra ; m was smulvasrsad me . pledammanl purpose rs not me same I: mumran, mm, were lswiul means are used, the purpose 5/ the combmelmn musl be 'spdefu/ and nI.ulr‘c:m1J“ (Sorrel! V snum (1925; AC mo al us) or amuatsd Dy ‘hismteresled ms/svofencf (Nan/I V P?awmsII19J1]255 NY307, paICudD1D c4 aIJ1E McKarmsn V Frasev[1€JV]v6 cu: :43 at :95) Ma ..~m.m4a:s- acltons mus! limefare sows norm of me’: awn cammsms! Wm. H5» predommenl purpose must a: In do hamv m we p(amlIN" [22] The com m A Santa Solvi Alau Malay a. Ova v. um Sari Mohd Na I2 Tun Abdul Rlznk 5. On [2015] 4 CLJ was re(ened to Buuen 2. Leake A Jacob's Frecedsnts ai Weadlngs and salad -(551 The pmvcrpls or plaadmg mnspamoy he; bun Muslmled and exp/awed m ‘amm. 1. Lacks A. ./acobk Pmoovtsrvls o(PVaad;,.g,u ,3», W nip 22v mmamorows. The gtsl mills loll ulcunspvmcyts not the oanspmanar agracmunl 10 mm. alarm, hutmalaglsementpmsmeovultlcls causing damage (Mnmnan V man [1963] 1 Q5 :34, aimed (19531 1 as 525; The slalemsrv! omam: should desmbe w/1n ms savsralplrlnu in m. msmacy an and Ihatrmlalmnsmp mm sacn ulnar n should altege lho mrmmaty mmn the aeremams gwug ma hastpattrculars yr csnoflhe dale: wlvsnaldalcsbafwianwhoclllhs unlaw/u/oansarracy was enleredmlo arcurvtinued and I/as men! In mm; men is no call la! a gsnemr plea af “admg wmngfy am malvcrousfy“ [Sarvvm V Smun11s25] A c 700 21 714) not Is ma! sulhnenl re new state pmcrszly me omecls and mans of m. alleged mnsmmcy m mmru and me aver! 3015 which are alleged 4.: have been me by each 0/ 14 sm mymuuuzxamuaunq «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VI mum pom! ma alleged ctmsvuslars tn pursuance or me consptrecy, Md Ian/y me rruury and damage accssmned to ma plsmltlflhereby - [231 After perusmg RameI|e‘s amended detenae and oounterctarnr tagetner wrtn tne arrruavrta tn reply, rt seems tnat Ranrette was merely maktng generat auegatrone agatnst the Frnanoers wrtnuut pmvtdmg any pamculats or spectltc oetarte Bare allagahans are not enough tor tne tort ot cortsptracy H can be ubserved thal PCE Development made de|aHed representatrons lo Ramelle, and RameHe allempled to aseoaate tne Ftnancters wt|h me satd repreeentatrone wtmoul any panrcutars or basts [24] I| re pemnent to note that Rerneue nae tarted ta pear: and provide lhe fullowmg matena\ pamomare [t] wnere and when was me igveemenl between the Fmanctersr PCB Devetopnrent and stepnen torrnuteteu or when tne untawtut cunsptracy was entered beiween them‘ (up what was tne agreement between me Ftnancters, PCB Develapmenl ane Stephen. and what was rnerr tntermcn_ and when ma tne Ftnancters agree to coflude wrtn me predomtnanl purpose to truure or cause trttury to Ramelle. (IH) tne eetans about the purported overt acts aflhe Ftnanctsrs V1 pursuance at any agreemenh and 15 em mymtinnzxamuaunq “Nana e.n.r nunhnrwm be mad a van; r... anmrrry mm: dnuumnl VII mane puns! (M now do me atteged overt acts at any) affect and tnture Rarnette [25] Tne rrrst tssue ts wny tne 2"“ Guarantee was exeoutett When\he1" Guarantee was Stgned. RameHe‘s ttaomy was tn proponron to RSG Maps's snarenotmng (then Sanderson Fru]ec| Devetopment (Malaysta) son BM) or not tess |han 51% tn the Bonuwer and PCB Devetoornent nettt 49% In tne Borrower At that trrne, Ramette neld 40% oi the shavers-t Darren held 19% and Stephen held 41% tn RS5 Maps [25] Tne 2"“ Guarantee was executed necatrse tnere was a cnange ot snarenouctrng In tne Burmwer By tetter dated 24 azuts, the Borrower requested tne FInancters' consent lur tne change or snarenotorng tn lhe Borrower aooonttng to ctause E2(r) of me Factllltes Agreement The Ftnanctels aoreeo to tne onange at sharehnldmg vlde Ieller dated 22 4 2015, which states - Kindly be agmo that me Majority srnaruars have no omoctran In mo pmpossd change: lo the present shareholding or /1 rr- (mo eonowerr pmstmn! Ia ATP‘: rrtarroars mac/tllmrv rlaled 23 Maror. zots sooroct to me Exectmon al personal guarantee by narnetra Ashram mn Ramh ror me Fecrlmes up In an amount ornrs sharulraidmg in AYP ' [27] Mar restructunng tne Borrower. Rarnette owned 147% 0! me shares, RSG Maps held 34 3% ant: PCB Development was tne maturity snarenolderwrtn 51% or the snares tn the Borrower Rarnette now owns 16 rn MHMLZHDEKBIAHBUBQ ‘Nair s.r.t mmhnrwm .. t... M van; .. nflgtrrnflly sun. dnuuvtnrrl VII .nuno porut llxsaolnoo shares m me Bclmwel lencl 33 exmm FAV7 Comparlles Cammlssmn of Malaysla (‘$5M’) sealer») Thus‘ lo rellect me change ol sharehuldlng VI me Borrower al me malenal (lme, Ramelle execuled the 2'“ Guarantee on 13 5 2016, «or whlch Ramelle‘s hablhly was ll: be calculated based on me pmportlnn elme shares held by Ramelle or nol lees man 14 7% m we Eormwer (as plovlded m clause E and F ol me 2"“ Guarantee) [231 Rarnelle alleged lnal Ihe Flnanclers‘ PCB Developmem and Stephen colluded ll: remove mm lrom me comm! nl RSG Maps and me Borrower He was caelced Io execule me 2~* Guarantee despfle me Flnsrlclevs knowlng that PCB nevelapmem would be buylng RameHe‘s shares ln me Barrawer and me Flnanclsrs wele always acting on me lnstrucllnns or PCB Development [291 l must emphasrse mal Ramelle was merely lnaklng sweeplng and geneval allegallons al consprracy wlmoul afludlng to any parllculals Hls slalemenls are unsubstantiated and ave corltliry lo eonlempmaneous uaeumanla Furthermore, Ramelle has smawn nolhlng lo lrldlcals lhal me Fmanoers had knowledge oflhe purponed represenlallons made by PCB Development or lhal me Flnanclers were laklrlg lrlslmcllons lrom PCB Dzvelclpmenl n m m1.lml.zHDEKalAi1aubQ ‘Nair Smnl nnvlhnrwm .. .l... M may he nflmnnllly mm: glam. vu .mm mm [an] Aeeommg la the Borrowers ssm search daled 11 12 2019‘ Ramene sun owns mrsouruoo shares m me Emmwav The shareholdmg scrumure nl RSG Maps es m 11 122019 revea\s that Rameue hams 1or5oo,ooo shares In RSG Maps 1ssM searen — and 33 exmm FAJ) Cansequemlyr RameIle’s oonnemrun rs eempnexexy umrue and mcorrsrsxenz wnh me eennemporeneous documents II :5 unaeruame lhal Ramelle was and Is a sharehalder er mm the Borrower and RS6 Maps [311 Ramelle a\sc seemed in rmply that me Flnanmers puvporledw conspved or eoereea RameHe to sign me 2"“ Gusramee because me Fmancrers were aware onrre venous legal dlspmes between Remeue and sxepnen u rs undrspmeu that me Fmancievs were nm e pariy or pnvy In me numerous smls reierred h: by RamsHe The Shah Nam cm: sun Nu 22NCVCA77—O9/2015 (‘Aclmn 477') was belween sue»: and use Maps, where SDGM cserrnea RM’/‘649‘DOUOD rrom ass Maps urmer s Navauarr Agreemem [32] In Shah Alam cum sum No 22NCVC—603—11l2(J15|‘AclIon 503‘). an achun was brought by R-segen Group San Bhd against SDGM lur me helenee ol RM1‘500,0U0 on due hem |he (Mal commission of RMZSUDDOU uo. lar prqed neueer: eervrces wrm me authomles prowded r~ mumuunzxawnauna " we sum n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my .. mm-y mm: dnuumrrl VII mum wrm by R-Segarl Group San Ehd lnroughoul the ‘meme Park pmlect Ramelle was a dlreclur or R—Segarl Group Sun and [33] The Kuala Lumpur cwll sun Na zzucvc-7l2—l2l2m5 (‘Achon 712‘) was laelween RSG Maps and Messrs snanu Khubayb 3. on, me currenl sohcllnrs ol Remelle, lor e declarauon mat Messrs Shahlrkhubayb & Ce Is nel aulnonsed to act as sollcllors lor RSG Maps H1 Anlan 477 Lastly‘ the snen Alarn c I sun No ZZNCVC-692-12/2015 (‘Acllurl 592') was belween RS6 Maps, Ramelle, Darren‘ and SDGM, slepnen and alners lor e declarallan lhel the Exlvaordlnary General Meellng (‘EGM‘) el RSG Maps held on 9 12 2015 ls lllegel and null and vow (341 The Flrlanclers were no: a party lo Actlarl 477, Acllon 503, Aellon 712 or Acllcn 692 ll ls clear lrom the Flnanclers‘ lellerdaled 25 2 2015 anal lney nad knowledge cl Acllnn 477 m mld-January 2015‘ when dlscusslans were held belween lne Flnenclers, represenxellves 0! me Bormwer and Rarnelle The pemee were lnlorrned that W! lne llgnl cl me lmpendlng legal eull. Acuon 477, me Term Loan was suspenaed accovdlng In lne terms el me Facllllles Agreemerll However‘ lne remaining pemon ul me Term Loan was allowed to be utilised agaln all 1032015, aller lhe panres concerned had resolved lne venous legal sulls As stated ll'| lhe Fmarlclers‘ leller deled 1032016‘ mere was a 19 rn mumuunzxawnaunq we s.n.l n-rlhnrwm .. u... m mm .. nflglrrnllly sun. dun-rlnrrl VII .nune puns! settlement agreement between me parties‘ wrucn was stamped on 4 3 2016 tha| rssawed tne sharehoIders'c1|spu|e1en:I33 exntbrt FAVE) [35] Learned counsellor Rarneue turtner argued that Ramelle had Msu unwllhngly warved aH bt ms ngnts under|helawagaInslSIepI1en wnen he wittrurew ah tne lega\ admns, rnevuarng Ms datms, defences and eaunterelarms m the above aetrons This court rs unable lo aeeept such argument as Rarneue was Iegauy represenled rn an at tne prooeedmgs agamsl stepnen [351 1 am at tne vtsw tnet tne ursputea between Rarrteua, snem and stepnen do nol relreve RameHe lvum ms Itabnrty under tne 2"“ Guavanlee Under lhe t“ and 2"‘ Guarantees, me guarantbrs Itabmty rs prbponmnal to the guarantors sharehuldmg tn the Bormwer Atter tne settlement between tne pames Rarneue owned 14 7% m tne Earrower Aooardmgly, RameHe had to execute tne 2"‘ Guarantee and be Mable tn prnpomon lo we snarenetdrng rn tne Borrower The auegetrons by Rarneue do no\ eslabllsh any term or cnnsprracy or coercion on the pan 0! the Fmanclels [37] RarneIIe's Itahrnty was reduced tram 51% underlhs 1“ Guarantee |o14 7% under the 2"‘ Guarantee Tneretore, tnere was no harm‘ damage or Vuury caused ta Rarneue Interestrnglyr Rarneue never disclosed the ra MHMLZHDEKBIAKBUBQ ma s.n.r In-nhnrwm a. .r... a van; r... ntimnnflly mm: dnuumnl vu mum amt [2] For convemenee, me plarnune/1" la 4'" de4ervdams nu ma amermea munlerclalm would be rererrea to as “the Fnnancvers". me 1"de1em1an( as “the Borrower", the 2"“ de1endan| as “PCB Devalnpme me 3'“ delendam as ‘RS6 Maps", me 4" deiendanl/p\amt|ll In me amended coumerclaum as 'Rameu 5'" and 6"‘ detenaams as Darren" and ‘Stephen’ respecuvely Background (acts [3] Al the request at me Borrower and by a Faclhlles Agreement dated 10 7 21114 (‘me Facilities Agreemenr) entered mm nerween me Fmanclers and me Ecrvowen me Fmancrers agreed |o gram, mler sue, a Term Loan a! up to RMZSODODDOO no (‘the Term Luau‘) m ore Borrower subjecllu me terms and common: mereov The pamculars nllhe Term Loan ana me ourIImI|menLs by the Fmancrers are as vouows ’ Amourmw W-r=..mr.rr 75,nuTxL:mT r..ea»=r=a....rr 13u,uun,ouuw 1 rm4'“PImmm ‘ 5a,n'nonnoao ‘ f rmrc TJ [4] wnn regards la the Term Loan pomcn gramed by the 3'" plarnm to lhe Eolmmen the sum 01 RM130r0D0,0000U campuses m mumunnzxamnauna ma s.n.r nmhnrwm a. HIGH m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dnuumnl VI mum am semerrterrt agveemenl or how he ended up wtth 10‘5u0,u00 shares In the Borrower lo lhls coun I must add than the Ftnamters were omy pro|ec1tng 1he1r1n|ereslasIenders M the Term Loan granted to me aorrower under the Facmltes Agreemertl The Fmancters‘ achuns only served then cpnrrnerc-at purpose‘ nm any prednmmanl purpose to harm or rnmre Ramelle [as] Ramelle med |a rety an an emaH dated 15112015 ms! was exchanged between one Jamal hm Mane Arts 0! PKNP Gruup and srepnerr, where he iltempled Io eslahhsh that me Fmanclels had conspwed wnh PCB Development and stepnen lo remove Remeue vrorn RSG Maps Indeed, 1| can be seen «mm the errratl Dial the Fmancters were not a party or prwy to the sand ppmmunrcennrr Thts rerntprces that me Ftnancters we not consptre W101 PCB Devetopment and Stephen, and that Rarneues allegaltons are mainly awed er path was Deveteprnent and Stephen [391 Nexr, Hernette argued that the 2"! Guemntee ts rttegat, void and unenlorceable as he stgned I! as a resutr ol tnurrrtaanan, coercion and duress lrom the Fmanclers ompers Renrette averred that he was lhrealartsd wtch bemg made me onty perry name to repay the enhve Term Loan 0! RMZED mllharl gramed tn the aorrewer TNS Caun hnds that rn rrtmuznnzxateuauna “ ‘Nair smnt ...n.rwrr .. 1... m vs-W n. nrnmr-r mm. m.r.n wa mum Wm! RameIIe‘s eonlermon VS unacceptabte because aecommg to me 1" and 2-" Guarantees, Rameuee Hablhiy IS propor|\rma\ in ma aharenommg In |he Borrower Evmenlly In We case‘ Ihe Ftnancwets are 0Ny clatnwtg I4 7% 07 the ammmt Ihat Is due tram Ihs Eorvuwer In accordance wllh clause A onhe 2'“ Guarantee [40] The Federa\ Cam! In Hang Chang swee V. Blttgkok Bank Ltd [1976] I MLI 251 he\d “A contract ofguamnlcu Vkl a/1 olhsr mnlrum, depends pnrmry upan fl: ottplassed Iulms and me msnecnve nghls Mme perms must be gemerea Imm lne guarantee form used M a particular ciss It should be strongly emphssrsed llml the elves! ula guannlai dupend: very much on the farm 12/ words used In Ills mum me were rule A: ma! wvman mums mm 9; may ormnrradtclod ur on! ewaenca Afler an defervrlanl rs a legally qwllrltodporsun mane: been m Praolrca In! some years He came uxlre dtdrmtknaw what be M: mrtmg Tn: gtsl 0/ms bargain mm p/amlrllls srmply Mal “Nyuu will amarvcl muney in the campuny, /writ be respunsrmelollto axIsm‘u1S75,170mHI|e cmtpuny dos: r-away’ Rarnene Is not a news person He was a dlremur and shareholder VI cnmpanies He was atwaya represented by counsel V1 ms cwtl suns agamst Stephen He had executed the 2‘ Guarantee vomnlamy tn Ihe presence of a senator wtmout any pru|es| or ohpedmn Funrterrnore, It VS clearly stated In lhe 2"-= Guarantee that "me slgnalanes In rhrs Guarantee are aawsea Io seek mdspsndsnf regal adwce before signing mrs sm m.auzaue<auuauaq “ «mm. Snr1n\nnmhnrwHH>e med w my r... mm-y mm. dnuumrtl VII mutm v-max Guarantee” It ts unlatv In make urrsubstantratea auegatrons at rnrrrrrruatrun‘ coerctnrt and duress devotd ot pamculars years after stgmng the 2"‘ Guarantee [41] Ramelle ts bound by In repay lhe Ftnancters me ammtn| due under the 2'" Guarantee In The Pacific Bank and (sued as guarinlor) v. Kerajaan Negerl Sauwuk [2014] 6 ML] 15:‘ me Fsaerat court stated 71571 The: same apploach was taken by me Rt Hon mm Anflrt Zakarva WIVEIV NI: mum; had oncssoon to mlnrpml 5 cnnlracl of guaranlve m Tulssca lnxurartm Sdrt Blvd V Liming: Kema/usrt Pzhany Tcrrggam (mm; [1ss6]MLJu 522 where Hrs Lamsmp observed that tn mg mI_I§mA_cIttwt ole cartlracl orgrrarama. Ithas n/subeen sardmal . ytdsdhevertce lo the (arm; g[ fi sggemenl need )9 be wnm As stated by the coun tn E755! V Browr-#1962145 an 1225 u mus! always be renal/snledm wrrar murmurs surety mum rm mm lo we letter aims ertgayament Esyond lire ymper mtsrprarutravt of mar engagslmrtl you have no mm upon rum pr. mm: M rmrem artdnu mnstderalron N9 rs bound mam merelyacoordt/_rq In M: er msa/wt and /r the wnlton en rrmnl he has entered mlo [42] tt must be emphasised that me rtgh|s and Itabtltttes M Ramette vrs-a-vis the Ftnancters In |hIs ctarrrr are to be asoenatned lrcm ma four corners ot the 2'“ Guarantee Rarneue, after executmg me 2"“ Guarantee ts eslupped tram alleging that he ts not table to pay the amount clatmed am mumuunzxamuaunq 1’ «mu. smut rnmhnrwm .. u... M my r... mm-y mm: mm. VII .rrum v-mat by me Fmancrers Gnpat Sn Ram JCA1as he then was) m Chonq voong Choy v. uoL rmarmg sun an-1[1ssc11 ML! 421, had (ms to say "In Eoustuad Trading (1925; Sdn arra v Arub-Malaystan Msrclvanl am BIu1[1995/3 MLJ 3:1, me Federal Court mu wvm mo mmre, purpan and legal Mew ac /aclonng agreement: n /5 rmlnsuesury /br An‘ In muse! all ma! was satdm thalcuc Sufllci In my mauhm wasa case m wmcrv me daclnrvs afasmppzl was Invoked :9 land carmrrsmw efltcacy lo . Imanng agreemenl The (acls :1! ms present case i/sa com: wvrhm the broad Dun/raw or that aocirms. and we :75 or my wgw mm a mnsrm mom dos: not m_xK nmrarx Dncausa m. aggul/unl u the guarantor or g mr grid nu! ma n1emnrhrm:elI' [43] It was mnher contended that me 2"" Guavamee Is rllegax, vmd and eniorcealfle because the Fmancuers sued unlawfully and are In breach of me pmhlblled busmess condm:| under subsecmn 12411) and paragraph 3 cl schedule 7 0! the FSA 2013 These pmvrsmns are reproduced as follows -12; pmnmm busmaxs conaucl 4:; A fins/10451 ssrwcs provloar srmr nut ungags In any pmhrbued busmess oonducl asset uutm swam. 7 Schudule 7 3 Examng undue ,-uassuru, wrum. ar usmg or Alnearenmg in use harassment comm, orpllysvcal fame In manor. In me pluvrsmn at my Mancral serwca olpmducl to . rmancrar Dunn/msr arms paymrrr «or any finarvcral sen/ms or mm: by 2 Manual consumer Paragraph 3 above refers to a financial consumer sm mumuunzxamuaunq " «mm. Snr1|\nuuhnrwH\I>e HIGH w my .. mruu-y mm: dnuumnl VI murm Wm! [44] Under secuon 121 of me FSA 2013. f1nancIa\ consumer means ‘any person who uses, has used ar may be mlendmg m use any nnanoa: serwce arpmducI— {a} fmpersonlh awvlssltc ormusanom purposes‘ (:2) m mnrveclvon wflh a anuu bus-mess as may oa suscmsd by Ina Bank under xevban r23. or [:1 whslhsrovnol forms purpusas 52.‘ Ml m pamgriph 1:] m m, VI- {1} ma var... aim: hnunmalsewrce: mpmducts am no! exceed an amoum as may be spsmfled by the Bank under sschorv 123 at yr; such person Is ora cuss, cnlsgury ardesanpborv Dlpenons as may be specmsd by the Bank undarscclnm :23- [45] on my perusa\ onna above pmvrsrons, :1 rs aounaanuy deal that paragraon 3 01 Schedule 7 and subsec1Ien12411)oHhe FSA zma do not apply |u me 2'-1 Guaramee Ramehe Is not a Irnancrax consumer wflhm mo Ilrmls of mess provisions He and nor In|end In use the nnancral service for psrsonax, domestic‘ or housshmd purposes or m connecuon wwh a srnau business On me other hand, Ramelle was a guarantor var ms Tenn Loan afRM2BD million granled to me Bummer Vn any evenl. Ranreue naa lafled to produce any evidence (a substantiate ms assenlons against the Frnancrers [A6] Tne next quesuon oevore Ims Caurl rs wnemer me Frnancrers‘ conduct was uncunscronaole Ramelle contended that me Fmanclers had breached their duty or care because they fafled to Inveshgale and rnqurre mm or oversee me qualny ulconslmcnon works or me Theme Park Aim‘ sm mmuzunzxamnauuq 1‘ «mu a.n.r ...n.mn .. u... m my r... nVW‘nlWY mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max nna Frnancrers were duty bound to assess the true value or me conslrutman malenals and Ina sen/mes before msbursmg me Term Loan nameue subrnrued that me Frnancrers have fiduciary obhgatnonslu ensure mar me vundrng Is nut to be rnrsappmpnareu by any lmrd parly [47] The Court 01 appea\ In Anambanken Mnluysia and L Dr: v. Sheuwurl sun Bhd 5 Anor [2014] A MLJ 519, concernnrg a banker and customer relauonshrp, new “[101] ms name 0! ma banker customer rerauananrp Is enlrrely corvtraclusl There I: narnng Irducraly abomn The sole nrenrran anna bank is to make apmlrl There rs no spscralrulalransmp narwaen ma bank and the cusmmcr nos; Tms aapaar csnlrsd an me relslronsluu between the appulmnlx as me ‘banker'anr1lIIs Ivspandenls as live ‘:u:rameI‘ Thetrrslabonsfvp was purely co/maclual rna aapauarus were me )9/mar: and cradvtors we the respunocrvls wen we bormwers and dsmurs manarananmua rsmsmsd stabc and crmumscnbsd cantmclually and mo/e was no muaary relslranslvlp bvlwuerv mam al au - According (0 me above case‘ It rs semed mat the nnancrers awe no duly bi care in me Borrower and Rarneue as men relanmnsmp, based on me Facnmes Agreement arm the 2"“ Guarantee, 15 enwely conlracluai [45] In «ne case or Ma||yan Eanklnq and u.Karn1v-Ioagang sun Bhd A On [2013] A MLJ 754‘ me Court n(Appea| new -(121 The banower and me guaramms numbed ma bank‘: mmeaga ul ma drspulss exrslmg between me narrower camp and Pslrur-as as 3 sm mumuunzxamuaubq 1‘ “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm a. u... w my r... nnmnnuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum war more Issue our new e Mal t! is coma/shyly mermnt la the borrowers taourty to pay the aulsla/tdmg sum: pursuant to live rao/rttes documunls Tm; lransaclmns bolwasn the bank Ind tn. hammer and tn. gusranlars muse Ircm a Azartkamtustomer releltartshua The ms; M Wang Delwsgu the bormwer as/~;= and Patrons: havs notmg do will! the bank mm drswes cann_ot om: Ills llabmly al the burrows! and ms gygrnnmrs to line Iuctlmas wrtn 1:: 5:! these dr :25 were 73: as red hem and are not Inab/9 rssues hers “ Cortsequenllyt the dtsputes belween PCB Development and RS6 Maps‘ the cm: eettons between Rarnelle and SDGM and Stephen, and any dtspu|es oetween Rarneue and any other thnd party retattng to the Theme Favk protect have nothtng to do wtth the Financtevs These dtspules cannot afied Rarneltes haotttty under the 2"‘ Guaranlee to repay the taotttttee [491 tn the case ot Perwira Nablh Bank Mllaysia and v. Snmuel Plklannlhtln [1993] 2 ML.) 423, the appeuant hank brought an aclton to recover the oredtt lactmles gtarvted \u the burmwer agatnst the respondent (Mr samuett undera contract ot guarantee The respondent attempted to avatd tiaotttty by contending that the other three guarantors had ootarned the bank oredrt tactttttes tor the pnnorpat dorrower by tetse representatron The respondent also contended that the appettant bank tn grartltng the taotttttes had acted recklessly, not canng whether the documents produced oy the other three guarantors were true or tatse The appauant bank was atso attegett ta have asststed the other three guatanlolstn sm m1,mt_2HDEKBIAItBut:Q '7 mu. s.t.t nuvthnrwm .. u... M my r... oflmnnflly mt. dnuuvtnnl vu .nnue mat mlsusmg the banking laclllues by srphurung money from me accnunl or me principal borrower Var men own use to me detriment of me prIncIpa\ barmwer and the respondent [so] Mohamed Azmn em speakmg for the Supmrue Coun In Perwlr: moan Bank (supra) said we make no mmmsms on any rvgh.‘ or ncrmrr lhal Mr Samuel maghl new had agarrrsl Illa amer mree drrsclors orme pnrrctpal bomzwsl. who were also nrs ooguuraniats in me man agreement Bu! olssrvz ms gmgfignl hank oweo no om ofcam ro Mr fialmual as e drlsclorfguagrvlar on Mn hankrr-rq lmnszcluur ro answu M5! the over mruclcus or lire prrnorpez bolrowsrnad nclad wnmn merraulhorvty, on me eonrrery rrmere nea gm anuurgrmree rn rne mtsma/aflzrltolfmz nrlngfilborrowsr um; rely ne om or Mr Samuel as a duuclor AD Asks whatever mm‘ rner was rreceasa lo /ul n rnlzreav ermeeorn an rls shareholders ' Svmwlafly, nne Frnencrere awed no duly al care to Ramelle, wno executed Ina 2"” Guaranuee anerrrnansrng ms dew wnn FOB Development, SDGM‘ Stephen, and the mlemal proolems rn RSG Maps The current apphcallon Is unrelatea to wha\ever acnon Ramelle nngm have against PCE Development and Stephen [511 M an ma|ena\ nmes, me drawdown process eno me arsoursenrenrs ai me Term Loan heo been made m accordance won me terms or me Faemnee Agreement, nrarnly chases 4 3 71a) and (mom 0! me Feomnee Agreement under mese dauses‘ me aorrower womd oe required lo srn mumuunzxamnauoq 1‘ «we. senor mmhnrwm .. med m my r... mn.ny mm: mmn Vfl mum perm subrmt TL Dvawmg Nance na lhe 1“ pnainnrn as Ina Facrmy Agen| The 1» p\amW wamd lhen give nuuoe lo the Frnancrera specliymg me amnunl and me are al me TL Drawrng Nance The TL Drawmg Nance, once gwen, Is rrrevocama Once me 1" plamllll has renewed me necasary documents required‘ the Borrower may drawdown the TL Facmty In accordance wvlh the TL urawrng Nance TL Dravwmg Nance dated 2212 2016 and me Independent Checking Engrneer cemncara Na 29 presamea by me Borrower 1:) me 1“ plarnmr rs snawn m endosure 37 axhrm FA»4 [52] In Cheah Swee Fan v. Bank aumipucra Malaysia End 1- Arror [2007] 7 MLJ 431, Tna Cour! 0! Appeal new "We agree wrrn mg onarna afme raarnaa .»_ag; mm Hg com rnar lo rmgosa gn M bank any duly In aseemm ng gglual xrlushon at me we ol vmv lot I! In make m u would mdeed oe an anaraus du ma »Lk 1: rs oaqaagmam that m the sbssrms or clear awdunm lha! the mar aaranaan: was aware or the actual amanan, at mar befng aware Inst mare was snmemmy arms: rn rna aIchrls:1’s nemlrcsie, when It made ma nnymenl :1 mm rmrbe sara mar ma firstaeisndant was m Drench alany ems dunes M Thus, underlhe (arm: ann. mnlmcl them was no duty an M9 penal the lust defeudam to go Dzhmd the aranram renrnaara Nermsrwls ma firs! aarenaanr competent to do so on 22 October 1992, me plamlrfl crealed a firs! Vega! charge agarnst rna pmpuny mm under H545; 25596 Pr No 555 Seclnn 94 Kuara Lumpurm Iuvaur olme firs! dafsndant as a security far the roan a¢E'M13& smz By me lermx ollhe charge me pfamllll Lumflod lhal na naa raczwed (he saw sum lmm ma firs! dalanmnl 1.. the 29 am namnnzxaaaauaa “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm a. med a mm r... nrighrnflly mm: dnuumnl VI mum puns! prernrm rr cannot In um! um prernnrv had not rmwea ma loan 1: (allows that na rs lrab/9 to pay me /0311 rn Iuu The almgtron that me firs! defondunl naa been n nrana/urremass rn rnana ma finarrm I an. m tzmtnmaum In lm an uxfrs dul an Ienaanr u! re I:anIrsI:lua/ amamn both under me canlmcl ang undsv me chsmg “ [531 Releuanuy, Ine terms onne Facmues Agreement an nnl Impuse any du|y on the pan nllhe Funanclerslo Investigate ergo behmd the arcm(ecl's eenrncauon or to oversee me quahty cf me eonsuuctron 0! me Theme Park bemre cne disbursement or me Term Lnan Moreover, Ramelle lafled to produce any clear evruence (ha\ zne Frnanaers were aware olhls aHega|Icns on me quamy of conslvucncn works and value er une construction materials and servroes belore me drsbursennem was made Even anerme payments were made‘ nnl a sunmedocumenl was produced |o snow man Ramelle objecled (0 n or that me TL Drawmg Nome and me drawduwn were rmproper In any evem, m Impose an me Fmanelers a amym asoenam me annual situation on me prqed sue nrta make mqulnes would place an onerous duty on me Frnancrers [54] Ramene runner asserted me: me CerImca|es ol maemeuness dated 23 5 2020 (end 21, exrum FA-E) shauld not to be accepted as evraenae Clause 20 at me 2~° Guarantee expncuuy proymas man a smemenl as to any amount due to me Fmanclers. wmcn Is cemfled by an owner or me Frnanerers, snan be cnncluewe eyrdence mat such amount rs due arm an srn mymunnzxamuaunq “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm be u... m mm r... nrighrnflly mm: dnuumrrl y.. mune Mr Rn/115,000,000 on granted under me Tmmsm Vniraslruclure Develupmem Fund unne 3"‘ p\am|If1 mar‘; and RM55rO0O,l)0U on glamed under me lnlrastrucmve General Fund cl me 3" maxnrm HGF‘), rsspec|we\y [5] The 1" plannllfl re and was ac aH malenal mnes. anrng n we cepacrry as me Facrmy Agen| and Semmly Agenr larme Flnanclevs pursuant to the Facnmes Agreemem The 1*‘ plarnuw Is a\so a lender m as uwn ngm {9} The Term Loan was gvanled la the Bmrowev [or me purpose a! flnancmg and development or an ammallon meme park m lpuh, Perak‘ knawn asme Mame Ammamn Park Smdm (‘the Theme Park‘) Sandevson Design Graup1Ma\aysIa7Sdn Bhd rsoeur) was appomled asrne turnkey eontramer for the Theme Park projeck [7] Acwrdmg re the «enns at the Feamres Agreement, the Borrower sxpressw agreed, //vter am: (5) that (he mlavest payable Is as (allow: 0) a| Ihe rate of 1% per annum abuve me I" and 2"‘ plaintiffs‘ Ease Lending Rare (‘BLR‘) In vespecl 09 the porlnon 07 the Term Loan granted W the 1" and 2"” p\amlM3 Al the lime OHHE Mug 0' [ms apphca||on‘1he 1“ and 2"“ p\a\rmfls' ELRS were at 556% per annum rn numnnexeeneune ‘Nair smm nnnhnrwm .. med m mm r... mn.u.y mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! payalfle tn retatren to the cenmcates at tndebtedneee, in the absence ol any emtence ct nranwest error on the lace cttne eenmcates, the amounts ctawned must be accepted as oarrsct (see cempaka Finanne End. (supra)) [55] tn ccnctusuonr I must empnasrse that Ramene remamed ccrnptetety srtent aner execulmg the 2"’ Guavamee unm ne was sued by the Frnancrers Ranreue are not reply or state anylhmg aner reoetvtng the letter M demand dated 11 12 2019 (mm Ihe Frnencrers The unsubetentrated auegatrens ct conspiracy, me rnnrnraatrnn, coercrcn ena duress by me omcers ol the Frnancrere and that the Fmancters acted VI bad [mm and breach of tnerr duly at care were ratsed tor we met trme an 17 92020 when tne statement of detenee and counterctarm was med Tnat ts lauv years aner ergnrng me 2'” Guarantee [55] Ramelle mu nct lodge any police report atmut hrs allegahons He made no eomptarnts tc the Frnencrers, 1“ platnltfl er Bank Negara tegardmg ms auegatrons and me candun at the Fmancters' omcers He am not even protest or wnte to the Fmanoters rnmcatrng mat ne was ramea tc srgn the 2-“ Guarantee W Rarneues auegatrens were true‘ that he was ten-.ea tc srgn me 2"‘ Guarantee and was not gnren a chance to seek independenl tegat advtce, dennrtely tnere wauld have been a protest 31 m nnnuznnexaraneuue we s.n.r nmhnrwm r. u... m mm r... nnmnnuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum amt Immedwately after \ha\ ellher by mm or ms snmznors am, nn| a smgle documenl was pruduced by Ramene \o suhslanlnale ms allegahnns [57] In Acuon 592. aner the EMG dated 912 2015 was cunuuaed. Rameue lodged a puhoe report on 1712 2015 so that aclmn coma be laken agaunsx S(ephen and others rawaung to me conduct of me EGM (end 24‘ page 157 cms) 0n1fi 12 2015, RameHe made a complamno ssrm, allacmng a detafled commaml wun me mmmes cl me EGM (end 24 page 159 CMS) As stated earner‘ Ramene us no| a nawe person He us an expsnenoea businessman Thereinre, n Ramelle was domed to execute me 2"“ Guarantee, n \s omy veasoname to expect me he would have wmmedwalew amemaa to u as he prcmpfly acted m Actmn 592 and not remam suem un\I| me Fmanclers sued mm In my view‘ me auegauons rawsaed by Rarnene m ms defence and oounterdaxm were bare auegauons made wmmut basis and an ananrmugm conclusion [sa] ms cam musl scnmmse, war: a fine»loolh comb, the ewdence and me menls of the case to determine whelher |he aeienoe and the counterclaim were bound man (see Truclnrs Malaysia Ehd v. Tio one: Ming [I515] 2 MLJ 1 and Rain Zainnl Abldin bin Raj: Haii Tachik 5. Or: sn -American Lira LGeneva| Insurance Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 16) m mumuunzxawuauna ma Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 m mm .. mn.u.y mm: m.n.n VII mum an.‘ [59] Fremlsefl on me above reasons, \hIs Court ws sansned max mere Is no reasoname cause of acuan m me amended coumerdalm and the delences rmsed are not arguanve The amended statement av cmenoe does not dlsdose a reasonable delence Rameues amended councercxamu Is plainly and ahwausxy unsustalnalfle The amended delence and the amended ceunlerdawm are lnvolaus, uexauous and an abuse oi me pmoess of the coun In the upshot, the Fmanmers’ appncamn Is aHowed vmth casts nanea 11Januaw _ / [EHUPINDA SINGH AIL GURCH RAN smcu PREET) Judge Hugh cum at Ma\aya Ipoh Caunse\ Forlhe Plannhfls/l“Io 4'" Delendams m the mun|ercIaIm Tan Gian Chung wmh Mananne Lnh and cam Tee Wen Hemg, Messrs Sheok Lm & suk For we 4“ Defendant/Fxavmu In me oounlerclavn AbduHah Khubayb Awamaam mm Ra;a Naor Syuhada Ra;a Khawunam, Messrs sham Khubayb & Co m mumunnzxaanauba ” mm. smm ...m.Mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. m»n.u-y mm: dun-mm VII murm pm.‘ and 5 55% per annum respecuvexy and Is sumac! to change, (H) at me rate at 5 3% per annum m resped or me pamon at the Term Loan granted under me TIDF by the am plalnllfl, (mp at me me 0! 1 4% per amnum over and above me 3'“ plammrs new V1 respacl ollhe purlmn ullhe Term Loan granted under IGF by me 3"’ pklxnhfl A1 me tune cv lhe Nmg ul «ms applwcallan‘ the 3"’ p\a\rmfVs BLR was 515% pet annum respccmely and us sumac! nu cnangs, W) at me rate 0! 1.95% per annum awe: and above lhe 4- p\amlIH's Enema Cost 0! Funds recor‘) of me 4'" pwamxm, m respect cl me portion ol me Tevm Laan granted by me 4*" plalnllff A1 me me Mme filing arms summary Judgment appncauon, we 4“ p|aIlmfl‘s ECOF was 66% per annum respeclwely and \s subjed lo change, and M Interest an a cevaun rate al 1% per annum over and above a!oresa\d me respecllve Term Loan rates on any aloresald overdue sum due and payame under me m mumunnzxaanauna mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pans! Term Loan Such m|eresl snau be compounded monlmy ax me end 0! eaen mleres| oeno-1, and (:2) upon me Bonewers delaun, mdudmg me iauure lo pay any amourfls uue thereunder whether demanded or no«, aH oulslandmg sums (actual or crmlmgent) under me rerrn Loan lagemer wan Imeresl and olhev cnarges thereon anau become nnrneararely due and payame to me rrnancrers and me Fmancners‘ ngrns under‘ mm aua, me Facrmres Agreemenl and the re\evan( securny documents shall become ImmedIa\ely enloroeable [E] The Term Loan I3 secured m lavourollhe 0' plarnml as lhe Secun|y Agent Vorme Frnanerers by Iwo personal guaranlees dated 10 7 2014 (‘1-' Guarantee‘) and 13 5 2015 executed by Ramelle According to the guaranlse dated 13 5 2015 (2-= Guarantee‘), Rarneue agreed in pay on demand to me Frnancrers, not merely as sure1y but as prIncIpa\ debtor, aH memes due and uwlng by me Borrower Itwas also agreed (hat Ramel|e‘s Iraunuy shall be cmcmaleti based on me prupnman of me snares new by mm or not wees than 14 1% In rne Borrower and he snan pay all costs and expenses Incurred by me Frnancrers In enlorcmg rne proyrsrons onne 2'" Guarantee an a Vull rnoenrnny basis rn mumuezxaunauue mu sum Iunhnrwm .. u... u mm r... mrmury mm: dun-mm vu mum war [91 Based on the 2"“ Guarantee, me prupnfllan ev shaves rrexd by Rameue In the Bormwer rs 14 7% [10] Accordingly, me Fmanmers had duly grimed me Term Loan and me aorrdwer had dmy unused me same Nonwnnstandmg me above‘ me Euvmwer, m breach av res obhgahons‘ delamted m makmg payments on «he due dales desprte the Fmancrers‘ repeated demands [11] on 11 12 2015, me 1“ p\a1r1W lhraugh us sohcnors, rssued lemters do demand an Ramelle demandrng payment 07 me Imal amcunl do RM35.s1o,34949 as 11! 11122019 due accardnng ID Rameues propamon of me Borrowers Indebtedness under me Term Loan Ramelle has failed to settle the uuxsxarrdrng sums as demanded or any parl mereor [121 under me 2" Guarantee‘ RameHs‘s nammy shall be calcwaled based on the prdponrdn of lhe shares held by mm at max less man 14 1% 1n me Borrower As such. as a| 11 12 2019, Rzmelle ra rndsmed la the Frnancrers as fanaws (a) rrr respeci dc RameHe‘s debt due re (he 1*‘ p\a1nl|N, me sum 01 RM31U76,93G 57 being me omscandrrrg sum as in 11 12 2019 wrm Interest mereun a1 me ml: at 1% per annum aver the 1" p\a1rmfl‘s BLR, and a lurmer 1% per r~ mumuunzxamuauba ‘Nair s.r1.1r..r1mrwmne LAIQ4 m yam r... nrighrnflly mm: dun-mm y.. nF\uNG am annum ue1auI1 Interest maroon compounded mommy, lrum 12 12 2019 untrl the we o1 M1 selllemem Ahsreot (o) m respec| o1 Rame||e's debt due to me 2"“ p1amm1 me sum o1 RM9,230‘791 71 oemg me ou1s1andmg sum as it 11 12 2019 w1(h mlevesl thereon an a me o11% per annum above me 2"‘ plamnrrs BLR, and a lunher 1% per annum delamt 1n1eres1 tnereon, oampounoeo montmy, [mm 12 12 2019 unm the date onuu sememer1I|herea1. (c) m vespecl o1 Rame|le's debt due 1o me 3" pIa1n1m, RM17,4o1,291 40 bemg lhe uulstandlng sums as al 11 12 2019, pamculars o1 wmcn are as foflaws (1) under TIDF, RM1o,52s.B1949 irom TVDF o1 the 3'“ plalnhff, mm |nIeres| rale ol 5 3% per annum and a vunner 1% per annum delaml un1eres1 thereon, Dampounded mommy, hum 12 12 me unm one date 0! M1 ssmemenl Inereok (11) under VGF‘ RMSC/74,471 911mm >GF nflhe 3'" plamufl‘ wnn m1eres1 rate or 1 4% per annum above me 3'“ pKa1r1t1ll‘s BLR, and a mnner 1% per annum delaull umeresc, compounded monmly, from 12 12 2019 unm me dame oHuuse111emen11nevao1, m n1u1aLz>1DE»<a1A31au1zQ mm. s.n.1...1s.m111... u... 1: mm 1... nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! (a) m respect 0! RameI|e's debt due to the 4"‘ ptarhtrrh the sum :2! RMS‘161,335E1 bemg the outstarrdrng sum as at 11 122019 wtth mterest thereon at a rate o1 1 95% per arrrrum above the A"- ptarmnrs ECOF and a Mther 1% per ahrrum ueteutt rnterest thereon, compounded monthly, (ram 12 12 2019 un|I| the date at mu eettterrreht thereto [13] On tat-12020, a Judgment rh delaull was entered egerhst the Borrower. PCE neretoprrrerrt‘ uarreh and stepherr, who were atsa the guerahtars oi the Borrower oh 22 s 2020‘ a judgmem tn detautt was entered against the other guarantor, RSG Maps [14] The law on an apphcetroh to Smke out pteadrhgs under Older ta rute 19 of the ROC ts welt setttea The authonuas on thrs subject matter have cteerty defined the principles that must be constdered by the court tn delerm mg an appltcattnn to s|nke nut pleadmgs The Court will ohty exercrse rts power in stnke out a clatm surrrmarrty uhder Ovder 15 rule 19 at the R00 tn cases where rt 15 Dlsm and obvtous Thts summary prncedure Is perrrrrssrbte where 11 15 clear that the clam! ts abvtously uhsustatrrante The Court WHI strrke out the ctarrrr rr rt tarts ta msclose a reasanabte cause 0! actlun (S|m Kie chorr v. Superirmendenl ol Pudu IN rvtmat.zHDEKa1AB1BubQ we 5.11.1 nnvthnrwm r. med M van; r... nngthnuly MIMI mm. VII nF\t.ING pans! Prlaon & Ors. [1955] 2:11 us and Bandnr B ' ersdn Bhd I-Ora v. unlteu M.I|nyan Banking corpbmlon Bhd [1993] mu 7 are relerred) [15] As «or omer 15 rule 15(1)(b)uf1he ROC the womb “lvlvolous and vexallous“ generally relsr 1b a groundless ac|lorl cl slatement wllh no pmepecl 0! success, ellen raised to embarrass or annoy tne other pany in me acllon A pleamng ls lrlvalous or vexallnus wnen 11 is obvlously Imsuslalnable An “abuse bl tne preeess ol the Court’ arlses under Order 15 rule 19(1)(e)ol1he ROC where tne process of lbe Court nes nbl been used W e Dolls flue manner and me prooess has been abused The com ls alsu enmled to look a| me wnale mstory bl lne maller lrl bbnslaenng wnelner me proceedings are lrlvaluus and vexallmls (see sae Thong 5 Anor v. Saw aeng cnong [2012] 1 LNS an, [2013] cl ML! 235 and Harapan Psnnai son Bhd v. Sabzll Forestlndumies Sdn Elm [2011] 1 cL.l us] [16] ms dlscrellorlary power ol me Cuun lb slrlke out an actlbn summanly IS a drashc power ll may be exercised only m plaln and oblllmzs cases and must be exsrclsed wllh me utmost caullon (see cc Mg 5. Brotners Sdn Bhd v.Governmar1lolthe stale olPahal1g[1985]1 CLJ 235; [1935] 1 ML! 347 and Sol ulty Sdn and v. unitau overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhld [2013] 1 LNS 314; [za13]4 MLJ 545] An N m1,]lal_zHDEKElABtEubQ ‘Nata am] I-vlhnrwm be ts... m van; .. nflglnnllly sums dun-mm VIZ nFluNG wml

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24NCvC-2226-06/2023

PEMOHON BAYU EMAS PROPERTY ASSETS SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) BEH SUI LOON 2. ) BEH SUI LIP

The Defendant’s counsel sought costs of RM70,000 as this OS ought not to have been filed in the first place. The Plaintiff asked for a reduction to RM10,000. This Court deemed it reasonable to award costs of RM30,000 to the Defendants, and it is so ordered.

12/01/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7632349c-aa0a-498c-a219-80b14229e4a7&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCvC-2226-06/2023 BETWEEN BAYU EMAS PROPERTY ASSETS SDN BHD … PLAINTIFF (COMP NO: 1353929-M) AND 1. BEH SUI LOON (NRIC No: 630427-10-7939) 2. BEH SUI LIP (NRIC No: 650819-10-8103) (SINGAPORE PASSPORT No: E6512291H) (Both as Administrators to the Estate of Beh Ving Suang @ Beh Lee Suan NRIC No: 340710-08-5143) ... RESPONDENTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 12/01/2024 16:08:12 WA-24NCvC-2226-06/2023 Kand. 19 S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 The relief sought [1] Vide this suit (OS) the Plaintiff is seeking this Court’s order to transfer and vest the ownership and all interests of 5/25 portion of land held under Geran No 9898 Lot No 50, Seksyen 95, Kuala Lumpur under the name of Beh Ving Suang @ Beh Lee Suan (the deceased) to the Plaintiff. The subsequent order prayed for is for the Defendants to effect it immediately. The basis for the Plaintiff’s application [2] The basis for the Plaintiff’s claim is that it had purchased the said land from one Murugesu a/l Kuppusamy [NRIC No: 570617-10-5529] (Murugesu) vide a sale and purchase agreement dated 19.12.2019 (the 2019 SPA). Prior to that, Murugesu had acquired all rights to the land from the deceased through a sale and purchase agreement dated 18.9.2009 (the 2009 SPA). [3] The purchase price for the land had been fully paid by the Plaintiff to Murugesu. However, the land is still registered under the name of the deceased. The historical facts to the case [4] The Defendants had filed a suit at the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur Civil - Suit No. WA-22NCvC-337-06/2020 (Suit 337) to claim for the land and cancel the Plaintiff’s registered interest in the land. The suit was against Murugesu, the Plaintiff, Saritha a/p Nagarajoo [NRIC No. S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 810306-06-5646] who is a director of the Plaintiff and affirmed affidavits for the Plaintiff in this suit (Saritha), Vasdave Singh a/l Gurdip Singh (NRIC No. 770413-085155) who is another of the Plaintiff’s directors (Vasdave), and Messrs. R Thayalan who was the Plaintiff’s solicitors. The Defendants’ claims against them were: (a) Murugesu for fraud, the Defendants alleged that he had forged the deceased’s signature on the 2009 SPA; (b) The Plaintiff, and its directors (Saritha and Vasdave) for the recovery of the land which was registered in the Plaintiff’s name at that time; (c) Messrs R Thayalan for negligence when they had failed to carry out their duties professionally pertaining to the land. [5] Murugesu had not appeared for Suit 337. The High Court found that the sale and purchase agreement between the deceased and Murugesu was not valid. The High Court declared that Murugesu had committed fraud and there was deceit pertaining to the sale and purchase and transfer of the land with the postal address of Unit LG1-LG5, No 95 Lower Ground Floors (Basement), Mallal Flats, Jalan Travers Brickfields, 50470 Kuala Lumpur. As such it was decided that the sale and purchase agreement between Murugesu a/l Kuppusamy and the Plaintiff were not null and void ab initio. It was declared that the deceased was the true registered owner of the land. [6] The High Court in Suit 337 ordered to set aside an earlier order in Summons No. WA-24-NCvC-102-01/2020 dated 18.2.2020 and cancelled S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 the land transfer to the Plaintiff. All registrable ownership and interests of the land were to be transferred and registered to the deceased. [7] Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. Murugesu was named as a party to Suit 337 but did not appear. He did not file any appeal to the High Court’s judgment, so he was not involved in the appeal. The Plaintiff became the first appellant whilst Saritha and Vasdave were the second and third appellants respectively. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on 30.12.2021. Unanimously, the Court of Appeal further held that the High Court order for them to undertake not to sell, lease, vest, rent or transfer or to transact for profits the land was no longer applicable to them. The High Court order that awarded costs of RM30,000 was also no longer applicable to Saritha and Vasdave. That was the extent of which the Court of Appeal had allowed Saritha and Vadave’s appeal. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s declaration that the Plaintiff, Saritha and Vasdave were negligent and not entitled to the exemption under s340(3) NLC. The other declarations and orders of the High Court were affirmed. The Court of Appeal set aside the findings of the High Court pertained the documents marked ‘ID’. It was the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Plaintiff was an immediate purchaser for the purposes of s340 NLC. The Plaintiff’s averments [8] The Plaintiff submitted that this OS is not an abuse of process. It claimed that Murugesu did not obtain the land by means of fraud because it was not proven that the 2009 SPA was a false document. With the same breath, the Plaintiff had also acknowledged that Suit 337 found both 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA null and void. The Plaintiff submitted that this OS was S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 not an abuse of court process because the Court of Appeal did not find that the SPAs were proven as fraudulent documents. [9] The Plaintiff further contended that because the Court of Appeal had decided that any findings by the High Court in Suit 337 that relied on the ID documents were not to be relied on, the Plaintiff was not bound by the doctrine of res judicata. The Plaintiff interpreted the Court of Appeal’s decision where it held the Plaintiff as the immediate purchaser as the rightful owner of the land now, having purchased it from Murugesu. [10] It was also the submissions of the Plaintiff that the documents of the 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA were ID documents in Suit 337. Thus, the Plaintiff submitted that all allegations of fraud were also set aside by the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff argued its understanding that the 2009 SPA was not affected which meant the Plaintiff was the first purchaser and ought to have its name registered as such. This Court’s assessment [11] In employing fairness to the approach of deciding this case, this Court presumes good faith on the part of the Plaintiff in that it had clearly misunderstood the Court of Appeal’s decision instead of attempting to mislead this Court. The Court of Appeal’s decision is not ambiguous. [12] To the High Court’s finding that first and foremostly, there was fraud and deceit on the part of Murugesu pertaining to the sale and transfer of the land, and that the 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA were null and void ab initio, the Plaintiff had appealed. It had appealed against the further declarations by the High Court that the transfer and registration of the land S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 in the Plaintiff’s name was null and void. The Plaintiff had also appealed against the High Court’s declaration that the deceased is the lawful registered owner of the land. [13] The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal. That means the judgment of the High Court against the Plaintiff have been affirmed and upheld. The only order of the High Court that was set aside against the Plaintiff is the declaration that the Plaintiff and its directors (Saritha and Vasdave) were negligent and not entitled to the exemption under s340(3) NLC. In other words, the blame that the High Court had placed upon the Plaintiff (and Saritha and Vasdave) in the partake of the land transaction which was tainted with fraud and deceit by Murugesu is set aside. The Plaintiff was found to be the immediate purchaser for the purposes of s340 NLC. [14] Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim over the land has been decided by the Court of Appeal. The deceased is the one who is the rightful registered owner of the land. Reproduced here is s340 NLC for easy reference that explains with certainty the position of the Plaintiff: “(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. (2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible – S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (a) in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which 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 of 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 – S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (a) the exercise in respect of any land or interest of any power of forfeiture or sale conferred by the Act or any other written law for the time being in force, or any power of avoidance conferred by any such law; or (b) the determination of any title or interest by operation of law.” [15] The Court of Appeal had affirmed the High Court’s findings of fraud and deceit on the part of Murugesu that concerned the 2009 SPA and the 2019 SPA. The Court of Appeal affirmed the findings that the deceased is the true lawful registered proprietor of the land and ordered the Land Registrar to register the transfer and the ownership of the land to the name of the deceased. Therefore, to now seek this Court for an order that the land be transferred to the Plaintiff’s name is wrong and goes against the very essence of the Court of Appeal’s order that had dismissed its appeal. To this extent, the Defendants are correct in their submission that it may amount to an abuse of court process. [16] The doctrine of stare decisis must additionally not be overlooked. The Court of Appeal, sitting below the Federal Court, binds the High Court and the lower courts. The application of this principle ensures that similar cases are treated alike, contributing to the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. What more when it is the same case as this one. The doctrine of stare decisis was reiterated in the Court of Appeal’s case in Pendaftar Muallaf Wilayah Persekutuan v Lee Chang Yong & Ors and another appeal [2022] 1 MLJ 653 at p661: S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 “In determining the issue at hand, it is instructive to make reference to the trite principle of stare decisis and its application. There is a plethora of cases on this doctrine and the oft-quoted case is the Federal Court case of Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 MLJ 149; [2012] 3 CLJ 577, where Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ lucidly explained the principle as follows: [50] A precedent can be defined as a judicial decision which serves as a rule for future determinations in similar or analogous cases. A precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding in subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. A precedent that must be applied or followed is known as a binding precedent. I would think that this court must follow its own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases and honour these rulings. After all, this court is the highest court in the country. The doctrine of precedent, a fundamental principle of English law, is a form of reasoning and decision making formed by case law. Precedents not only have persuasive authority but also must be followed when similar circumstances arise. Any principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. In short, the courts are bound within prescribed limits by prior decisions of superior courts. Judges are also obliged to obey the set up precedents S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 established by prior decisions. This legal principle is called stare decisis. Adherence to precedent helps to maintain a system of stable laws. Judicial precedent means the process whereby judges follow previously decided cases where the facts are of sufficient similarity. The doctrine of judicial precedent involves an application of the principle of stare decisis, ie, to stand by the decided. In practice, this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. This provides consistency and predictability in the law. (Emphasis added.) In the same case, the importance of strict adherence to this doctrine was emphasized in the following words: [35] ... It is of supreme importance that people may know with certainty what the law is, and this end can only be attained by a loyal adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis. (Emphasis added.) In a recent Federal Court case of Zaidi bin Kanapiah v ASP Khairul Fairoz bin Rodzuan and other cases [2021] 3 MLJ 759; [2021] 5 CLJ 581, the importance of strict adherence to the doctrine was reiterated as follows: [211] The importance of adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis lies in the fact that it has become the cornerstone of the common law practiced in this country. It is fundamental S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 that decisions of the courts, especially of the apex court, ought to be consistent, in the interests of finality and certainty in the law. Otherwise, the public and lawyers who have regulated their affairs in reliance on a ratio decidendi before it is overruled will face difficulty and confusion in organising their affairs around such judgments and this in turn will affect public confidence in the Judiciary (see Dato’ Tan Heng Chew v Tan Kim Hor [2006] 2 MLJ 293; [2006] 1 CLJ 577; Public Prosecutor V Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 276; [1980] 1 LNS 58. See alsoKerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 MLJ 149; [2012] 3 CLJ 577). (Emphasis added.) Further, in an earlier Federal Court case of Dato’ Tan Heng Chew v Tan Kim Hor [2006] 2 MLJ 293; [2006] 1 CLJ 577 Steve Shim CJSS stated: [2] … It is axiomatic to state that the doctrine of stare decisis has become the cornerstone of the common law system practised in this country. It is fundamental to its existence and to the rule of law. It has attained the status of immutability. In Public Prosecutor v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 277, Mr Justice Chang Min Tat had occasion to restate the doctrine in words which are poignantly clear when he said: It is … necessary to reaffirm the doctrine of stare decisis which the Federal Court accepts unreservedly and which it expects the High Court and S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 other inferior courts in a common law system such as ours to follow similarly. [3] Judicial hierarchy must be observed in the interests of finality and certainty in the law and for orderly development of legal rules as well as for the courts and lawyers to regulate their affairs. Failure to observe judicial precedents would create chaos and misapprehensions in the judicial system. This fact was certainly borne in mind by the Court of Appeal in Periasamy s/o Sinnappan & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1996] 2 MLJ 557 wherein Gopal Sri Ram JCA said: We may add that it does not augur well for judicial discipline when a High Court judge treats the decision of the Supreme Court with little or no respect in disobedience to the well entrenched doctrine of stare decisis. We trust that the occasion will never arise again when we have to remind High Court judges that they are bound by all judgments of this court and of the Federal Court and they must, despite any misgivings a judge may entertain as to the correctness of a particular judgment of either court, apply the law as stated therein. [4] The observation is but a stark reminder to judges of the importance of adhering to the doctrine ... (Emphasis added.)” S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [17] The importance of strict adherence to this doctrine could not be better emphasised. This Court will not make any new ruling on this matter. It has already been decided by the Court of Appeal that the deceased is the rightful registered owner. So, this Court will not depart from the judgment. [18] The law on immediate purchaser is also settled. As held by the Federal Court in Kamarulzaman bin Omar & Others v Yakub bin Husin & Ors [2014] 2 MLJ 788, the facts of which are very similar to this case at hand, held that immediate purchaser is not protected by the s340(3) NLC: “In the instant case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal held that the fifth and sixth respondents were bona fide purchasers. However, both courts failed to inquire whether the fifth or sixth respondents were immediate or subsequent purchasers. Only a subsequent purchaser was entitled to raise the shield of indefeasibility. An immediate purchaser of a title tainted by any one of the vitiating elements acquired a title that was not indefeasible. Thus, even if the fifth and sixth respondents were bona fide purchasers they could not by that fact alone have acquired a shield of indefeasibility unless they had been bona fide subsequent purchasers. In the present case, the first to the fourth respondents, from whom the fifth and sixth defendants obtained title, were not immediate purchasers but rather imposters of those entitled to the estate of the deceased. Therefore, when the fraudulent title of the first to the fourth respondents was set aside by the default judgment, the defeasible title of the fifth and sixth respondents was also defeated.” S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [19] Therefore, as ruled by the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff’s defeasible title was defeated. The finding of fraud and deceit on the part of Murugesu resulted in both the High Court in Suit 337 and the Court of Appeal affirming the 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA null and void ab initio. It could not now seek for the title of the land to be transferred and registered to it, not just because this matter had already been adjudicated, but the law itself would not allow it. [20] This brings this Court’s consideration to the next legal argument of res judicata. The Plaintiff submitted that the net effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision was to maintain the orders in Suit 337 but on different grounds. According to the Plaintiff, the reason in the High Court that the Plaintiff was not entitled was due to negligence whilst the Court of Appeal viewed it as not entitled as it was an immediate purchaser. The Plaintiff contended that the doctrine of res judicate was inapplicable in this OS. [21] This argument is most unacceptable. The Court of Appeal in David Cheah Seng Chye v So Miau Song & Ors and other appeals [2023] 5 CLJ 20 clearly held: “However, the doctrine of res judicata is not confined to causes of action or issues which the court is actually asked to decide or has already decided. It covers also causes of action or issues or facts which, though not already decided as a result of the same not being brought forward due to negligence, inadvertence or deliberately, are so clearly could have been raised, that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.” S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [22] The Plaintiff’s OS cannot succeed as the subject matters had been deliberated and ought to have been ventilated. See Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189. This Court will not allow the Plaintiff a second bite of the cherry. [23] On so many levels, the Plaintiff’s OS has no basis to succeed. Based on the Plaintiff’s arguments, it was understood that the finding of fraud was no longer applicable with the Court of Appeal’s order to set aside findings based on the ID documents. But that was not pleaded in its affidavits. Instead, the issue on notice was averred. This Court does not accept submissions from the Bar – see Time Online Dotcome Bhd v Bates (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2005] 6 CLJ 389. [24] In any event, as repeated herein above, the Court of Appeal had dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the High Court finding that there was fraud and deceit on the part of Murugesu pertaining to the 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA. Therefore, the ruling to set aside the High Court’s findings based on the ID documents still resulted in the affirmation that the deceased is the lawful registered owner of the land. This Court’s Order [25] The role of this court is not to act as a forum for endless appeals and re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively decided. The doctrine of res judicata, which precludes parties from re-litigating issues that have been finally settled by a competent court, is a cornerstone of our S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 legal system. It is grounded in the principle of judicial finality and the need for certainty in legal proceedings. [26] The Court of Appeal’s pronouncements are not just mere guidance but are binding determinations that set a precedent for similar matters, in this case, the very same subject matter. Allowing the same issues to be raised repeatedly, especially after a thorough examination and decision by the Court of Appeal, would not only undermine the authority of the Court of Appeal but also erode the stability and predictability that is essential in the administration of justice. [27] Therefore, in adherence to these principles, this Court concludes that the matters previously decided by the Court of Appeal cannot be re- opened for further debate or examination here. The said decision must be respected and adhered to. This ensures not only respect for the judicial process but also the efficient and effective administration of justice. [28] To ensure that the finality of litigation rule is not breached, this Court dismisses the Plaintiff’s OS. The Plaintiff is not allowed to re-open litigation where the subject matter had already been adjudicated by the Court of Appeal. See Lim Sue Beng v Maybank Investment Bank Berhad [2012] MLJU 1576. [29] The Defendant’s counsel sought costs of RM70,000 as this OS ought not to have been filed in the first place. The Plaintiff asked for a S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 reduction to RM10,000. This Court deemed it reasonable to award costs of RM30,000 to the Defendants, and it is so ordered. DATED 28 DECEMBER 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiff: Keshvinjeet Singh Sidhu T/n Gunaseelan & Associates For the Respondent: Shahrul Azwan, Ong Eu Jin, Aaron Mathew and Nur Syuhada T/n E J Ong & Partners S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24NCvC-2226-06/2023

PEMOHON BAYU EMAS PROPERTY ASSETS SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) BEH SUI LOON 2. ) BEH SUI LIP

The Defendant’s counsel sought costs of RM70,000 as this OS ought not to have been filed in the first place. The Plaintiff asked for a reduction to RM10,000. This Court deemed it reasonable to award costs of RM30,000 to the Defendants, and it is so ordered.

12/01/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7632349c-aa0a-498c-a219-80b14229e4a7&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCvC-2226-06/2023 BETWEEN BAYU EMAS PROPERTY ASSETS SDN BHD … PLAINTIFF (COMP NO: 1353929-M) AND 1. BEH SUI LOON (NRIC No: 630427-10-7939) 2. BEH SUI LIP (NRIC No: 650819-10-8103) (SINGAPORE PASSPORT No: E6512291H) (Both as Administrators to the Estate of Beh Ving Suang @ Beh Lee Suan NRIC No: 340710-08-5143) ... RESPONDENTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 12/01/2024 16:08:12 WA-24NCvC-2226-06/2023 Kand. 19 S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 The relief sought [1] Vide this suit (OS) the Plaintiff is seeking this Court’s order to transfer and vest the ownership and all interests of 5/25 portion of land held under Geran No 9898 Lot No 50, Seksyen 95, Kuala Lumpur under the name of Beh Ving Suang @ Beh Lee Suan (the deceased) to the Plaintiff. The subsequent order prayed for is for the Defendants to effect it immediately. The basis for the Plaintiff’s application [2] The basis for the Plaintiff’s claim is that it had purchased the said land from one Murugesu a/l Kuppusamy [NRIC No: 570617-10-5529] (Murugesu) vide a sale and purchase agreement dated 19.12.2019 (the 2019 SPA). Prior to that, Murugesu had acquired all rights to the land from the deceased through a sale and purchase agreement dated 18.9.2009 (the 2009 SPA). [3] The purchase price for the land had been fully paid by the Plaintiff to Murugesu. However, the land is still registered under the name of the deceased. The historical facts to the case [4] The Defendants had filed a suit at the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur Civil - Suit No. WA-22NCvC-337-06/2020 (Suit 337) to claim for the land and cancel the Plaintiff’s registered interest in the land. The suit was against Murugesu, the Plaintiff, Saritha a/p Nagarajoo [NRIC No. S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 810306-06-5646] who is a director of the Plaintiff and affirmed affidavits for the Plaintiff in this suit (Saritha), Vasdave Singh a/l Gurdip Singh (NRIC No. 770413-085155) who is another of the Plaintiff’s directors (Vasdave), and Messrs. R Thayalan who was the Plaintiff’s solicitors. The Defendants’ claims against them were: (a) Murugesu for fraud, the Defendants alleged that he had forged the deceased’s signature on the 2009 SPA; (b) The Plaintiff, and its directors (Saritha and Vasdave) for the recovery of the land which was registered in the Plaintiff’s name at that time; (c) Messrs R Thayalan for negligence when they had failed to carry out their duties professionally pertaining to the land. [5] Murugesu had not appeared for Suit 337. The High Court found that the sale and purchase agreement between the deceased and Murugesu was not valid. The High Court declared that Murugesu had committed fraud and there was deceit pertaining to the sale and purchase and transfer of the land with the postal address of Unit LG1-LG5, No 95 Lower Ground Floors (Basement), Mallal Flats, Jalan Travers Brickfields, 50470 Kuala Lumpur. As such it was decided that the sale and purchase agreement between Murugesu a/l Kuppusamy and the Plaintiff were not null and void ab initio. It was declared that the deceased was the true registered owner of the land. [6] The High Court in Suit 337 ordered to set aside an earlier order in Summons No. WA-24-NCvC-102-01/2020 dated 18.2.2020 and cancelled S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 the land transfer to the Plaintiff. All registrable ownership and interests of the land were to be transferred and registered to the deceased. [7] Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. Murugesu was named as a party to Suit 337 but did not appear. He did not file any appeal to the High Court’s judgment, so he was not involved in the appeal. The Plaintiff became the first appellant whilst Saritha and Vasdave were the second and third appellants respectively. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on 30.12.2021. Unanimously, the Court of Appeal further held that the High Court order for them to undertake not to sell, lease, vest, rent or transfer or to transact for profits the land was no longer applicable to them. The High Court order that awarded costs of RM30,000 was also no longer applicable to Saritha and Vasdave. That was the extent of which the Court of Appeal had allowed Saritha and Vadave’s appeal. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s declaration that the Plaintiff, Saritha and Vasdave were negligent and not entitled to the exemption under s340(3) NLC. The other declarations and orders of the High Court were affirmed. The Court of Appeal set aside the findings of the High Court pertained the documents marked ‘ID’. It was the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Plaintiff was an immediate purchaser for the purposes of s340 NLC. The Plaintiff’s averments [8] The Plaintiff submitted that this OS is not an abuse of process. It claimed that Murugesu did not obtain the land by means of fraud because it was not proven that the 2009 SPA was a false document. With the same breath, the Plaintiff had also acknowledged that Suit 337 found both 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA null and void. The Plaintiff submitted that this OS was S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 not an abuse of court process because the Court of Appeal did not find that the SPAs were proven as fraudulent documents. [9] The Plaintiff further contended that because the Court of Appeal had decided that any findings by the High Court in Suit 337 that relied on the ID documents were not to be relied on, the Plaintiff was not bound by the doctrine of res judicata. The Plaintiff interpreted the Court of Appeal’s decision where it held the Plaintiff as the immediate purchaser as the rightful owner of the land now, having purchased it from Murugesu. [10] It was also the submissions of the Plaintiff that the documents of the 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA were ID documents in Suit 337. Thus, the Plaintiff submitted that all allegations of fraud were also set aside by the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff argued its understanding that the 2009 SPA was not affected which meant the Plaintiff was the first purchaser and ought to have its name registered as such. This Court’s assessment [11] In employing fairness to the approach of deciding this case, this Court presumes good faith on the part of the Plaintiff in that it had clearly misunderstood the Court of Appeal’s decision instead of attempting to mislead this Court. The Court of Appeal’s decision is not ambiguous. [12] To the High Court’s finding that first and foremostly, there was fraud and deceit on the part of Murugesu pertaining to the sale and transfer of the land, and that the 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA were null and void ab initio, the Plaintiff had appealed. It had appealed against the further declarations by the High Court that the transfer and registration of the land S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 in the Plaintiff’s name was null and void. The Plaintiff had also appealed against the High Court’s declaration that the deceased is the lawful registered owner of the land. [13] The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal. That means the judgment of the High Court against the Plaintiff have been affirmed and upheld. The only order of the High Court that was set aside against the Plaintiff is the declaration that the Plaintiff and its directors (Saritha and Vasdave) were negligent and not entitled to the exemption under s340(3) NLC. In other words, the blame that the High Court had placed upon the Plaintiff (and Saritha and Vasdave) in the partake of the land transaction which was tainted with fraud and deceit by Murugesu is set aside. The Plaintiff was found to be the immediate purchaser for the purposes of s340 NLC. [14] Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim over the land has been decided by the Court of Appeal. The deceased is the one who is the rightful registered owner of the land. Reproduced here is s340 NLC for easy reference that explains with certainty the position of the Plaintiff: “(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. (2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible – S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (a) in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which 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 of 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 – S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (a) the exercise in respect of any land or interest of any power of forfeiture or sale conferred by the Act or any other written law for the time being in force, or any power of avoidance conferred by any such law; or (b) the determination of any title or interest by operation of law.” [15] The Court of Appeal had affirmed the High Court’s findings of fraud and deceit on the part of Murugesu that concerned the 2009 SPA and the 2019 SPA. The Court of Appeal affirmed the findings that the deceased is the true lawful registered proprietor of the land and ordered the Land Registrar to register the transfer and the ownership of the land to the name of the deceased. Therefore, to now seek this Court for an order that the land be transferred to the Plaintiff’s name is wrong and goes against the very essence of the Court of Appeal’s order that had dismissed its appeal. To this extent, the Defendants are correct in their submission that it may amount to an abuse of court process. [16] The doctrine of stare decisis must additionally not be overlooked. The Court of Appeal, sitting below the Federal Court, binds the High Court and the lower courts. The application of this principle ensures that similar cases are treated alike, contributing to the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. What more when it is the same case as this one. The doctrine of stare decisis was reiterated in the Court of Appeal’s case in Pendaftar Muallaf Wilayah Persekutuan v Lee Chang Yong & Ors and another appeal [2022] 1 MLJ 653 at p661: S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 “In determining the issue at hand, it is instructive to make reference to the trite principle of stare decisis and its application. There is a plethora of cases on this doctrine and the oft-quoted case is the Federal Court case of Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 MLJ 149; [2012] 3 CLJ 577, where Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ lucidly explained the principle as follows: [50] A precedent can be defined as a judicial decision which serves as a rule for future determinations in similar or analogous cases. A precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding in subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. A precedent that must be applied or followed is known as a binding precedent. I would think that this court must follow its own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases and honour these rulings. After all, this court is the highest court in the country. The doctrine of precedent, a fundamental principle of English law, is a form of reasoning and decision making formed by case law. Precedents not only have persuasive authority but also must be followed when similar circumstances arise. Any principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. In short, the courts are bound within prescribed limits by prior decisions of superior courts. Judges are also obliged to obey the set up precedents S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 established by prior decisions. This legal principle is called stare decisis. Adherence to precedent helps to maintain a system of stable laws. Judicial precedent means the process whereby judges follow previously decided cases where the facts are of sufficient similarity. The doctrine of judicial precedent involves an application of the principle of stare decisis, ie, to stand by the decided. In practice, this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. This provides consistency and predictability in the law. (Emphasis added.) In the same case, the importance of strict adherence to this doctrine was emphasized in the following words: [35] ... It is of supreme importance that people may know with certainty what the law is, and this end can only be attained by a loyal adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis. (Emphasis added.) In a recent Federal Court case of Zaidi bin Kanapiah v ASP Khairul Fairoz bin Rodzuan and other cases [2021] 3 MLJ 759; [2021] 5 CLJ 581, the importance of strict adherence to the doctrine was reiterated as follows: [211] The importance of adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis lies in the fact that it has become the cornerstone of the common law practiced in this country. It is fundamental S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 that decisions of the courts, especially of the apex court, ought to be consistent, in the interests of finality and certainty in the law. Otherwise, the public and lawyers who have regulated their affairs in reliance on a ratio decidendi before it is overruled will face difficulty and confusion in organising their affairs around such judgments and this in turn will affect public confidence in the Judiciary (see Dato’ Tan Heng Chew v Tan Kim Hor [2006] 2 MLJ 293; [2006] 1 CLJ 577; Public Prosecutor V Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 276; [1980] 1 LNS 58. See alsoKerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 MLJ 149; [2012] 3 CLJ 577). (Emphasis added.) Further, in an earlier Federal Court case of Dato’ Tan Heng Chew v Tan Kim Hor [2006] 2 MLJ 293; [2006] 1 CLJ 577 Steve Shim CJSS stated: [2] … It is axiomatic to state that the doctrine of stare decisis has become the cornerstone of the common law system practised in this country. It is fundamental to its existence and to the rule of law. It has attained the status of immutability. In Public Prosecutor v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 277, Mr Justice Chang Min Tat had occasion to restate the doctrine in words which are poignantly clear when he said: It is … necessary to reaffirm the doctrine of stare decisis which the Federal Court accepts unreservedly and which it expects the High Court and S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 other inferior courts in a common law system such as ours to follow similarly. [3] Judicial hierarchy must be observed in the interests of finality and certainty in the law and for orderly development of legal rules as well as for the courts and lawyers to regulate their affairs. Failure to observe judicial precedents would create chaos and misapprehensions in the judicial system. This fact was certainly borne in mind by the Court of Appeal in Periasamy s/o Sinnappan & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1996] 2 MLJ 557 wherein Gopal Sri Ram JCA said: We may add that it does not augur well for judicial discipline when a High Court judge treats the decision of the Supreme Court with little or no respect in disobedience to the well entrenched doctrine of stare decisis. We trust that the occasion will never arise again when we have to remind High Court judges that they are bound by all judgments of this court and of the Federal Court and they must, despite any misgivings a judge may entertain as to the correctness of a particular judgment of either court, apply the law as stated therein. [4] The observation is but a stark reminder to judges of the importance of adhering to the doctrine ... (Emphasis added.)” S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [17] The importance of strict adherence to this doctrine could not be better emphasised. This Court will not make any new ruling on this matter. It has already been decided by the Court of Appeal that the deceased is the rightful registered owner. So, this Court will not depart from the judgment. [18] The law on immediate purchaser is also settled. As held by the Federal Court in Kamarulzaman bin Omar & Others v Yakub bin Husin & Ors [2014] 2 MLJ 788, the facts of which are very similar to this case at hand, held that immediate purchaser is not protected by the s340(3) NLC: “In the instant case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal held that the fifth and sixth respondents were bona fide purchasers. However, both courts failed to inquire whether the fifth or sixth respondents were immediate or subsequent purchasers. Only a subsequent purchaser was entitled to raise the shield of indefeasibility. An immediate purchaser of a title tainted by any one of the vitiating elements acquired a title that was not indefeasible. Thus, even if the fifth and sixth respondents were bona fide purchasers they could not by that fact alone have acquired a shield of indefeasibility unless they had been bona fide subsequent purchasers. In the present case, the first to the fourth respondents, from whom the fifth and sixth defendants obtained title, were not immediate purchasers but rather imposters of those entitled to the estate of the deceased. Therefore, when the fraudulent title of the first to the fourth respondents was set aside by the default judgment, the defeasible title of the fifth and sixth respondents was also defeated.” S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [19] Therefore, as ruled by the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff’s defeasible title was defeated. The finding of fraud and deceit on the part of Murugesu resulted in both the High Court in Suit 337 and the Court of Appeal affirming the 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA null and void ab initio. It could not now seek for the title of the land to be transferred and registered to it, not just because this matter had already been adjudicated, but the law itself would not allow it. [20] This brings this Court’s consideration to the next legal argument of res judicata. The Plaintiff submitted that the net effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision was to maintain the orders in Suit 337 but on different grounds. According to the Plaintiff, the reason in the High Court that the Plaintiff was not entitled was due to negligence whilst the Court of Appeal viewed it as not entitled as it was an immediate purchaser. The Plaintiff contended that the doctrine of res judicate was inapplicable in this OS. [21] This argument is most unacceptable. The Court of Appeal in David Cheah Seng Chye v So Miau Song & Ors and other appeals [2023] 5 CLJ 20 clearly held: “However, the doctrine of res judicata is not confined to causes of action or issues which the court is actually asked to decide or has already decided. It covers also causes of action or issues or facts which, though not already decided as a result of the same not being brought forward due to negligence, inadvertence or deliberately, are so clearly could have been raised, that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.” S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [22] The Plaintiff’s OS cannot succeed as the subject matters had been deliberated and ought to have been ventilated. See Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189. This Court will not allow the Plaintiff a second bite of the cherry. [23] On so many levels, the Plaintiff’s OS has no basis to succeed. Based on the Plaintiff’s arguments, it was understood that the finding of fraud was no longer applicable with the Court of Appeal’s order to set aside findings based on the ID documents. But that was not pleaded in its affidavits. Instead, the issue on notice was averred. This Court does not accept submissions from the Bar – see Time Online Dotcome Bhd v Bates (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2005] 6 CLJ 389. [24] In any event, as repeated herein above, the Court of Appeal had dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the High Court finding that there was fraud and deceit on the part of Murugesu pertaining to the 2009 SPA and 2019 SPA. Therefore, the ruling to set aside the High Court’s findings based on the ID documents still resulted in the affirmation that the deceased is the lawful registered owner of the land. This Court’s Order [25] The role of this court is not to act as a forum for endless appeals and re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively decided. The doctrine of res judicata, which precludes parties from re-litigating issues that have been finally settled by a competent court, is a cornerstone of our S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 legal system. It is grounded in the principle of judicial finality and the need for certainty in legal proceedings. [26] The Court of Appeal’s pronouncements are not just mere guidance but are binding determinations that set a precedent for similar matters, in this case, the very same subject matter. Allowing the same issues to be raised repeatedly, especially after a thorough examination and decision by the Court of Appeal, would not only undermine the authority of the Court of Appeal but also erode the stability and predictability that is essential in the administration of justice. [27] Therefore, in adherence to these principles, this Court concludes that the matters previously decided by the Court of Appeal cannot be re- opened for further debate or examination here. The said decision must be respected and adhered to. This ensures not only respect for the judicial process but also the efficient and effective administration of justice. [28] To ensure that the finality of litigation rule is not breached, this Court dismisses the Plaintiff’s OS. The Plaintiff is not allowed to re-open litigation where the subject matter had already been adjudicated by the Court of Appeal. See Lim Sue Beng v Maybank Investment Bank Berhad [2012] MLJU 1576. [29] The Defendant’s counsel sought costs of RM70,000 as this OS ought not to have been filed in the first place. The Plaintiff asked for a S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 reduction to RM10,000. This Court deemed it reasonable to award costs of RM30,000 to the Defendants, and it is so ordered. DATED 28 DECEMBER 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiff: Keshvinjeet Singh Sidhu T/n Gunaseelan & Associates For the Respondent: Shahrul Azwan, Ong Eu Jin, Aaron Mathew and Nur Syuhada T/n E J Ong & Partners S/N nDQydgqqjEmiGYCxQinkpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24NCvC-1345-08/2022

PEMOHON 1. ) NIVETHAH A/P THAMAYANDIRAN 2. ) SWETHA A/P THAMAYANDIRAN RESPONDEN KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA PENCELAH MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR

Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction – Syariah and Civil Courts – Legal status of illegitimate children – Whether Hindu or Muslim – Whether an ab initio or a renunciation case – Federal Constitution, Articles 121(1) and 121(1A); Item 1 List II, Ninth Schedule – Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, sections 2(1), 61(3)(b)(x) and 74(2) – Islamic Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, section 111. Islamic Law: Jurisdiction – Syariah Court – Illegitimate children – Religious status – Whether Hindu or Muslim – Whether a renunciation case – Federal Constitution, Articles 121(1) and 121(1A); Item 1 List II, Ninth Schedule – Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, sections 2(1), 61(3)(b)(x) and 74(2) – Islamic Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, section 111.

11/01/2024

YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=48b8de74-c4e3-414d-8a71-9d8239171024&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO: BA-24NCvC-1345-08/2022 Dalam perkara Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964, termasuk seksyen-seksyen 23, 25, 84 dan Bahagian 1 Jadual Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964 dan Dalam perkara Perlembagaan Persekutuan, termasuk Perkara 11 dan Perkara 12(4) dan Dalam perkara Akta Relif Spesifik 1950, termasuk seksyen-seksyen 41 dan 44 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 dan Dalam perkara Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, termasuk Aturan 5 Kaedah-kaedah 3 dan 4, Aturan 7, Aturan 15 Kaedah-kaedah 12 dan 16 dan Aturan 28 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan 09/02/2024 10:48:01 BA-24NCvC-1345-08/2022 Kand. 50 S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dalam perkara bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini ANTARA 1. NIVETHAH A/P THAMAYANDIRAN (No. K/P / Sijil Kelahiran: 030522-10-1392) 2. SWETHA A/P THAMAYANDIRAN (No. K/P / Sijil Kelahiran: 040612-10-1352) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA, MALAYSIA 2. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (MAIS) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The matter before this Court concerns the religion of the Plaintiffs. [2] The Plaintiffs, Nivethah a/p Thamayandiran and Swetha a/p Thamayandiran, seek two broad categories of reliefs. The second set of S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 reliefs are consequential to the granting of the reliefs sought under the first broad category. [3] The first are declarations that are general in nature, namely, (a) that the Plaintiffs’ religion is, and has always been, Hindu; and (b) that all laws made by the Selangor State Legislative Assembly under the Ninth Schedule, List II, Item 1 of the Federal Constitution, including the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 do not apply to or affect the Plaintiffs. [4] The second type of reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs are targeted primarily at the First Defendant, the Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara. In the event that this Court grants the first type of reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs, they seek the following Declaration/Order, namely, (a) that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be issued identity cards by the Defendant in recognition of their religion; and (b) an order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Defendant to issue identity cards to the Plaintiffs which reflect the Declarations made under the first category of reliefs sought. [5] The Second Defendant in this action is the Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS). Overriding Issues [6] The principal issue for consideration is whether this Court is seized with the jurisdiction to determine the religion of the Plaintiffs. S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [7] If the answer to the above key issue is in the affirmative, the corresponding issue is whether the Plaintiffs were born into the Muslim faith. In resolving this equally crucial issue, questions arise as to the applicable law for determining the religion of a citizen in this country. [8] If the answer to the question outlined in the preceding paragraph [7] is in the negative, the issue of renunciation of the Muslim faith does not arise. The Jurisdiction Issue [9] At the outset, it should be emphasized that this Court, being a civil court, will not have jurisdiction and accordingly cannot exercise jurisdiction over this matter if this matter were one that involves the renunciation of the Muslim faith. Cases involving the renunciation of the Muslim faith are within the exclusively jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution expressly provides that the High Court in Malaya referred to in Article 121(1) “shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts”. [10] In addition, this Court takes cognizance of the provisions in sections 61(3)(b)(x) and 74(2) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 which expressly confer jurisdiction on the Syariah Court in Selangor to hear cases relating to the renunciation of the Muslim faith. [11] However, in cases where a person's religious status of whether she or he is a Muslim or not is in dispute, on the authority of the decision of the Federal Court in Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Anor [2021] 2 AMR 551; [2021] 3 CLJ 301; [2021] 2 MLJ 181; [2021] 2 MLRA 70 (“Rosliza Ibrahim”), this Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the said issue. As articulately clarified by the Federal Court: [78] … Syariah Courts may only exercise jurisdiction over a person or persons on two conditions. Firstly, the person shall profess the religion of Islam. This can generally be classified as jurisdiction ratione personae - where the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court is contingent on the litigant's legal persona. The phrase is most commonly used in disputes where one party is a sovereign, a foreign State, or one who enjoys diplomatic immunity and privileges cloaking him with immunity from legal process. [79] Secondly, even if Syariah Courts may exercise jurisdiction ratione personae, they must still ensure that they have jurisdiction over the subject-matter as expressly enumerated in the said item 1. This may be classified as jurisdiction ratione materiae - or subject matter jurisdiction. [80] Unlike the superior courts in Part IX of the FC which are constitutionally established and in whom the judicial power of the Federation inherently vests, the Syariah Courts are creatures of statute (specifically State Enactments) and accordingly, their jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed by the laws which establish them. Absent jurisdictions ratione personae and ratione materiae over a person, Syariah Courts are not empowered by the FC to exercise any power over that person and if exercised, would be ultra vires the FC. … S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [108] … if a matter concerns an ab initio case, that is, the question whether a person is in the first place a "person professing the religion of Islam" it necessarily concerns a question regarding one's identity under the FC which in turn necessitates constitutional interpretation. This is because the phrase "persons professing the religion of Islam" is a constitutional term. Accordingly, the civil courts are empowered, indeed, duty-bound to adjudicate the matter. It is only in renunciation cases where one already professes or proclaims to profess the religion of Islam (irrespective of whether they actually practise the faith) with the subsequent decision to change what they profess, that the matter is removed to the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. [12] In light of the above authorities, the pivotal question before this Court is whether the present matter concerns the question of whether the Plaintiffs’ religious status is or is not in dispute. Ab-Initio or Renunciation Case? [13] The Plaintiffs, Nivethah a/p Thamayandiran and Swetha a/p Thamayandiran, are biological sisters and born in 2003 and 2004 respectively. They seek the declarations in Enclosure 1 as they have maintained the position that their religion is, and has always been, Hindu. Hence, they disagree that this is a renunciation case. [14] The First Defendant, the Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, has adopted the proposition that the Plaintiffs are Muslims by section 2(1)(b) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003. Hence, by virtue of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the First Defendant argued that this Court “has no S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 jurisdiction to grant the declaration that the Plaintiffs are no longer Muslims”. [15] The Second Defendant, the Majlis Agama Islam Selangor, on the other hand, argued that to all intents and purposes, “the Plaintiffs’ action tantamount to an action for renunciation from the religion of Islam and not for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are not Muslim ab-initio”. [16] In their submissions, the Second Defendant relied on the following passages from the decision of the Federal Court in Rosliza Ibrahim: [89] The High Court and the Court of Appeal are therefore correct in principle. If the plaintiff is a Muslim seeking to renounce her faith in Islam, then the matter being "an offence against the precepts" of Islam, is within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court due to art. 121(1A) of the FC. The Court of Appeal further confirmed this by following this court's decision in Lina Joy (supra). … [90] At this juncture, a very fundamental distinction identified earlier, emerges. There is a critical distinction between "no longer a Muslim" on the one side, and 'never was a Muslim', on the other. The former refers to renunciation cases which as explained, fall within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. The latter, which may be loosely described as ab initio cases, cannot, on a coherent application of the law, fall within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. … … [99] Reverting to the question: do the civil courts possess jurisdiction to determine the status of persons who claim to "never have been Muslim" S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 as opposed to 'no longer being a Muslim'? The answer to the question must naturally be in the affirmative as otherwise there would be no legal recourse for persons of the ab initio category. When it concerns a renunciation case, the civil courts have consistently held that it was within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts conferred under art. 121(1A) of the FC. For the record, learned Senior Federal Counsel appearing for the Attorney General as amicus curiae, agreed that it is the civil courts that have jurisdiction over persons of the "ab initio category". [17] These passages relied by the Second Defendant merely establish what this Court has set out at the very beginning in paragraphs [9] and [10] above. These passages cited by the Second Defendant do not answer the critical question of whether the present case is an ab-initio or a renunciation case. The answer to this vital question determines whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant the declarations sought by the Plaintiffs. [18] Reverting to paragraph [89] of the Federal Court decision in Rosliza Ibrahim that was quoted by the Second Defendant, the Federal Court had also said as follows: [89] … However, the conclusion of the courts below that the plaintiff is a Muslim was based solely on the erroneous finding of fact that the plaintiff's parents were married during her birth and thus resulting in the erroneous application of s. 2(1)(b) of the ARIE 2003. Premised on the earlier findings that the plaintiff is an illegitimate child, the conclusion formed on the said s. 2(1)(b) is unsustainable. [19] In other words, a determination will first have to be made as to whether the Plaintiff in Rosliza Ibrahim was a Muslim by virtue of section S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 2(1)(b) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003. The same applies to the present case. [20] On the references to Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Yang Lain [2007] 3 AMR 693; [2007] 3 CLJ 557; [2007] 4 MLJ 585; [2007] 1 MLRA 359 (“Lina Joy”), the important qualifications that were made in those passages must be underscored. At paragraph [89] in Rosliza Ibrahim, Tengku Maimun CJ did say that: [89] … To understand this, it would perhaps be useful to distinguish Lina Joy (supra). [21] And again, at paragraph [90], the learned Chief Justice made the following critical observations. [90] Lina Joy involved a case where a self-admitted Malay Muslim woman filed a suit to remove the word Islam from her identity card. … the ratio of Lina Joy appears to be that because Azlina was always a Muslim, it was necessary that any attempt by her to change her religion required the approval of the Syariah Court. In this context, Lina Joy is entirely distinguishable from the present case on the basis that the present case is an ab initio case and not a renunciation case. [22] As a final remark on Lina Joy and to resolve the first of the two principal issues raised in this present matter, the following observations by Azahar Mohamed CJ (Malaya) are most pertinent. [142] It can be seen that the appellant's case rests on her never having been a Muslim. According to the appellant, she has never been a Muslim in all her life. What's more, according to the appellant she was born out S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 of wedlock, raised by a Buddhist mother in the Buddhist faith at all times. She did not dispute that her putative father was at all material times a Muslim. In this regard, I agree with the findings of the learned Chief Justice that as the evidence stands, the appellant ought to have succeeded in her claim in the courts below ie, that her parents being unmarried at the time of her birth renders her an illegitimate child. I also agree with the learned Chief Justice's findings that the evidence suggests the appellant was raised in the Buddhist faith and there is nothing in the evidence to prove that the appellant was raised a Muslim. The appellant also averred that Muslim laws are being and will be imposed on her unlawfully. She further averred that there's no legal basis for imposing Islamic law and Islamic morality on her. [143] In my opinion, both the courts below erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant is not claiming that she is "no longer a Muslim". One crucial point needs to be made here. The present case is not a case of renunciation. It is not an "exit case". We are concerned here with the question of whether the appellant was a Muslim at birth, which is a question of law. The courts below made an erroneous finding that the present case fell outside the civil courts' jurisdiction. [144] Clearly, the decision of Lina Joy lwn. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Yang Lain [2007] 3 CLJ 557; [2007] 4 MLJ 585 ("Lina Joy "), that was relied on by the Court of Appeal is distinguishable. Lina Joy and the present case could not be more different from each other. The issue in Lina Joy concerned the original de facto status of the applicant, a Malay who was originally a Muslim, seeking to renounce her Islamic faith. Therefore, the Federal Court found that it was a matter within the Syariah Court's jurisdiction. In my opinion, where the subject matter requires a determination of whether a person is or is not a Muslim under the law, the civil High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and decide S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 whether the case is properly brought before the civil courts by evaluating the factual matrix and circumstances presented before it and also the declaration that is being sought for. (Own emphasis) [23] What can be distilled from Rosliza Ibrahim, a decision by the apex court with a coram of nine judges, are inter alia, that Lina Joy is distinguishable from the present case and the present case, like Rosliza Ibrahim, concerns a question of law. [24] This question of law which requires a determination of whether the Plaintiffs are or are not Muslims is for this Court to hear and decide. The answer to the first of the two predominant issues outlined in paragraph [6] above is in the affirmative. Determination of the Religious Faith [25] As was rightly underscored by the Federal Court in Rosliza Ibrahim, the determination of whether a person is or is not a Muslim under the law requires the civil courts to evaluate the factual matrix and circumstances presented before it. The Law [26] Before delving into the factual matrix of the case, it is essential that the applicable law be examined in detail. Central to the present case is the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, in particular, section 2(1) of the said Enactment. The relevant section reads as follows: S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 2. (1) In this Enactment, unless the context otherwise requires — ... “Muslim” means — (a) a person who professes the religion of Islam; (b) a person either or both of whose parents were at the time of the person’s birth, a Muslim; (c) a person whose upbringing was conducted on the basis that he was a Muslim; (d) a person who is commonly reputed to be a Muslim; (e) a person who has converted to the religion of Islam in accordance with section 108; or (f) a person who is shown to have stated, in circumstances in which he was bound by law to state the truth, that he was a Muslim, whether the statement be oral or written; [27] Of relevance is section 2(1)(b) of the said Enactment. Both the First and the Second Defendants submitted that the Plaintiffs here fall squarely within the definition of “Muslim” pursuant to section 2(1)(b) of the said Enactment. S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [28] The Defendants further relied on section 111 of the Islamic Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003. This section provides as follows: 111. Where a child is born to a woman who is married to a man more than six qamariah months from the date of the marriage or within four qamariah years after dissolution of the marriage either by the death of the man or by divorce, and the woman not having remarried, the nasab or paternity of the child is established in the man, but the man may, by way of li’an or imprecation, disavow or disclaim the child before the Court.” The Factual Matrix [29] The following facts are not disputed. First, the Plaintiffs were born out of wedlock and are hence illegitimate children. [30] Their biological parents are Thamayandiran a/l N Kanniaseelan and Anizah a/p Genasan, both of Indian descent. [31] The Plaintiffs’ maternal biological grandmother, one Safiah binti Othman, is Anizah a/p Genasan’s biological mother. Safiah binti Othman is a Muslim. [32] Safiah binti Othman had a relationship with one Ganesan a/l AJ Karuppiah, a Hindu. As a result of that relationship, the Plaintiff’s biological mother, that is, Anizah a/p Genasan was born out of wedlock and deemed an illegitimate child. S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 The Parties’ Contentions [33] As a consequence of the above factual matrix, it was contended by the Defendants that the Plaintiffs were born Muslims by virtue of their biological mother’s lineage. The Defendants argued that that a reading of section 111 of the Islamic Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 points to the conclusion that the nasab of the children (Plaintiffs) in this case cannot be established in their father unless they were born legitimate. Since the Plaintiffs in the present case were born illegitimate, when section 111 of the Islamic Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 is read together with section 2(1)(d) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, the words “parents” in the latter provision “cannot refer to father and can only refer to mother because the putative father of an illegitimate child cannot, in law, be considered as the child’s father. [34] The Defendants draw support for the above contentions from the following passages of the Federal Court’s decision in Rosliza Ibrahim. [64] Under s. 111, which relates to the ascription of paternity, a child may only be ascribed the paternity of the father if he or she is born to a woman who is married to the man for a period of more than six qamariah months. And the father may only disavow or disclaim paternity under the provisions of that section. It follows that a child born less than six qamariah months or born to a woman not married to the man who fathered the child is illegitimate and the nasab or paternity of the child could not be established in the father. A simple application of the section to the facts of the instant case results in the conclusion that the plaintiff is an illegitimate child and while her status as a Muslim is disputed, it S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 remains undisputed that Ibrahim is a Muslim. And as a Muslim, the said s. 111 applies to Ibrahim to remove him, in law, of any ascription of paternity to the plaintiff. [65] The necessary implication upon a holistic construction of IFLE 2003 against s. 2 of the ARIE 2003 therefore suggests that "parents", in s. 2 of the ARIE 2003, refers only to the parents of legitimate children. Reason being, if s. 111 of the IFLE 2003 not only renders a child illegitimate but also bars the ascription of paternity to the said child, then it stands to reason that the putative father cannot, in law, be considered the child's father. This is the first reason why the plaintiff cannot be considered a Muslim simply by virtue of s. 2(1)(b) of the ARIE 2003. [35] In Rosliza Ibrahim, the Federal Court was confronted with the specific question of whether the plaintiff in that case could be ascribed the paternity of the father, who was a Muslim, and the Federal Court answered the question in the negative, the underlying basis being that the plaintiff was an illegitimate child. [36] In the present case, as the Plaintiffs are also illegitimate children, the Defendants relied on Rosliza Ibrahim for the proposition that they cannot be ascribed the paternity of their father, who is a Hindu. This leave their mother, who the Defendants assert, is a Muslim. And by virtue of section 2(1)(d) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, since “either” of their parents, that is, their biological mother, was at the time of their birth, a Muslim, the Plaintiffs are deemed as Muslims by law. [37] The above is indeed a forceful and valid argument. Be that as it may, the Federal Court in Rosliza Ibrahim, did in the very paragraph [65] relied S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 by the Defendants say that "parents", in section 2(1)(d) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, “refers only to the parents of legitimate children”. As the Plaintiffs in this case are illegitimate children, that section has no application and the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed in law as having been born as Muslims pursuant to section 2(1)(d) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003. [38] The Federal Court in Rosliza Ibrahim further emphasized this point at paragraph [70] when it held as follows: [70] In conclusion, the following issues in respect of question 2 are clear. Firstly, the plaintiff is an illegitimate child. There is no proof of marriage of her parents at the time she was born. The plaintiff cannot be deemed a Muslim simply by virtue of s. 2(1)(b) of the ARIE 2003 on the premise that "either" or "both" of her parents are Muslim. [39] In this regard, this Court is still tasked to make a determination as to the religion of the Plaintiffs. Before proceeding to this aspect of the case, this Court would like to address one preliminary objection raised by the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff should have commenced their action by Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. [40] The Second Defendant based their argument on the ground that first, “the [sic] relieve sought by the Plaintiffs are of prerogative relief involving the [sic] decision making process by a public authority (JPN) under the realm of public law and not private law.” Second, it argued that S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 the present matter involved the challenging of a decision-making process by a public body made under public law. [41] The authorities cited by the Second Defendant in support of their preliminary objection are Chong Chung Moi @ Christine Chong v The Government of the State of Sabah & Ors [2007] 4 AMR 472; [2007] CLJU 714; [2007] 5 MLJ 441; [2007] 6 MLRH 730 and Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri v Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 5 CLJ 865; [2010] 3 MLJ 145; [2010] 1 MLRA 524]. [42] In response, the Plaintiffs referred this Court to Datuk Syed Kecik v Government of Malaysia & Anor [1979] 2 MLJ 101 at 103 and 107-108 and YAB Dato Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir & Ors v YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu & Attorney-General Malaysia (Intervener) [2009] 4 MLJ 24 for the proposition that relief by way of declaration pursuant to Order 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 is permissible. [43] Upon an examination of the authorities cited by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Plaintiffs are entitled to commence this action by way of an Originating Summons application. [44] Returning to the issue of the religion of the Plaintiffs, this Court agrees with the submission of the Plaintiffs that the approach to be adopted is as set out by the Federal Court in Rosliza Ibrahim’s case, that is, through a careful scrutiny of the factual evidence and the circumstances of the case. [45] Based on the evidence before this Court, it is of the considered view that the Plaintiffs have made out their claim on a balance of probabilities. S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [46] The Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in Enclosure 1. [47] The Defendants are to each pay costs of RM10,000 to the Plaintiffs. Dated: 11 January, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Gurdial Singh Nijar with Abraham Au and Lim Sze Han for the Plaintiffs (Messrs. Yeoh Mazlina & Partners) Mohammad Sallehuddin bin Md Ali for the First Defendant (Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia) Kamaruzaman bin Muhammad Arif with Muhammad Izzat bin Dzulkafli for the Second Defendant (Messrs. Kamaruzaman Arif & Sofiah) S/N dN64SOPETUGKcZ2CORcQJA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-83D-8962-09/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Mohamad Feisal Bin Zainal Abidin

OKT dituduh dibawah Seksyen 39(A)(1) ADB. Ini adalah rayuan Pendakwa Raya terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini pada 17.11.2023 yang membenarkan OKT di dalam kes ini diikat jamin dengan bon jaminan berkelakuan baik sebanyak RM3,000 dengan seorang penjamin bagi tempoh selama 2 tahun (dengan cagaran) di bawah s. 294(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.

11/01/2024

Puan Arunjothy A/P M Selvaraju

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4f7e9543-d47a-435e-a025-f60deab7c757&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET JENAYAH (3) DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR NO. KES: WA-83D-8962-09/2022 PENDAKWARAYA LAWAN MOHAMAD FEISAL BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN [NO KAD PENGENALAN.: 940812106055] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENDAHULUAN [1] Di dalam kes ini, Orang Kena Tuduh (OKT) telah dituduh dengan dua (2) pertuduhan seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pindaan: Bahawa kamu pada 13/06/2022 jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang di hadapan pondok pengawal keselamatan Lake Fields, Jalan Tasik Utama 2, Taman Tasik Damai Sungai Besi, dalam daerah Cheras di Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, didapati dalam milikan kamu iaitu dadah jenis Methamphetamine 11/01/2024 15:19:53 WA-83D-8962-09/2022 Kand. 40 S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 (berat bersih: 13.46 gm) oleh itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A (1) Akta yang sama. Hukuman: Jika disabitkan kesalahan boleh dihukum dengan penjara untuk suatu tempoh tidak kurang daripada dua tahun tetapi tidak lebih daripada lima tahun dan juga akan dikenakan hukuman sebat tidak kurang daripada tiga sebatan tetapi tidak lebih daripada sembilan sebatan. Pertuduhan Kedua: Bahawa kamu pada 13/06/2022 jam lebih kurang 7.05 petang bertempat di tandas pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Cheras, di dalam daerah Cheras dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala lumpur, telah didapati memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan kamu sendiri iaitu dadah jenis Amphetamine dan Methamphetamine. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen dan akta yang sama. Hukuman: Jika disabitkan kesalahan hendaklah didenda tidak lebih daripada lima ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih daripada dua tahun. S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 LATAR BELAKANG KES [3] Kes ini telah ditetapkan untuk Bicara pada 30.11.2023, Peguambela OKT telah maklumkan bahawa terdapat perkembangan baru dan telah pohon pertuduhan dibacakan. Setelah pertuduhan pindaan dan pertuduhan kedua dibacakan kepada OKT, OKT telah mengaku bersalah terhadap kedua-dua pertuduhannya. OKT faham sifat dan akibat pertuduhan dan mengaku salah. Selepas OKT membuat pengakuan salah, peguambela OKT telah pohon satu tarikh untuk Jatuh Hukum dengan alasan untuk menyediakan mitigasi bertulis. Mahkamah benarkan penangguhan dan telah tetapkan tarikh Fakta dan Hukum pada 17.11.2023. Pada 17.11.2023, pertuduhan pindaan dan pertuduhan kedua dibacakan semula kepada OKT dan OKT masih mengaku salah keatas pertuduhannya dan OKT faham sifat dan akibat pertuduhan dan mengaku salah. Pihak pendakwaan kemudiannya telah mengemukakan ekshibit-ekshibit seperti berikut dan telah diakui benar oleh OKT: P1 – Fakta kes; P2 – Laporan Tangkapan; P3 – Laporan Kimia; P4(a-b) – Gambar barang kes; P5 – Laporan Patalogi; P6 – Satu sampul putih; P7(a-c) – 3 peket plastic bertanda P8 – Baki Analisa dadah S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [4] Setelah mendengar rayuan mitigasi peguam bela bagi pihak OKT dan hujahan pendakwaan, dan mempertimbangkan dengan teliti kepentingan OKT serta kepentingan awam dalam kes ini, Mahkamah ini telah mendapati bahawa OKT telah salah dan sabit dengan pertuduhan namun dilepaskan dengan Bon Kelakuan Baik selama dua (2) tahun di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah bercagaran RM3,000.00 dengan seorang penjamin bagi pertuduhan pindaan pertama. Manakala bagi pertuduhan kedua, Mahkamah telah memerintahkan supaya OKT membayar denda sebanyak RM1,500.00 gagal bayar tiga (3) bulan penjara dengan dua (2) tahun pengawasan. [5] Pihak pendakwaan tidak berpuas hati dengan hukuman yang telah diberikan oleh Mahkamah ini dan telah memfailkan rayuan pada 20 November 2023. FAKTA KES [6] Fakta kes adalah seperti berikut: Pada 13.06.2022 jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang pengadu bersama sepasukan anggota polis dari Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik IPD Cheras, Kuala Lumpur terdiri daripada 8 anggota telah tahan (1) lelaki melayu di hadapan pondok pengawal keselamatan Lake Fields, Jalan Tasik Utama 2, Taman Tasik Damai Sungai Besi Cheras Kuala Lumpur. Setelah perkenalkan diri sebagai pegawai kanan polis dengan menunjukkan kad kuasa polis kepada suspek, pengadu jalankan pemeriksaan terhadap suspek menjumpai (1) kotak rokok warna merah jenama U2 yang di pegang dengan tangan kanan suspek. S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Pengadu ambil dan periksa kotak rokok tersebut didalamnya terdapat (2) peket besar plastik lutsinar dan (1) peket kecil plastik lutsinar berisi bahan disyaki dadah jenis Methamphetamine (anggaran berat: 31.08 gram). Hasil ujian saringan awal polis saspek dapati positif Amphethamine dan Methaphetamine. Barang kes yang dirampas telah dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Petaling Jaya, Selangor untuk dianalisa dan telah disahkan, satu (1) plastik, bertandakan “SR 1” (berat bersih 13.46-gram) Methamphethamine. Specimen (1) botol plastik air kencing tertuduh telah diambil bagi ujian pengesahan dadah dalam air kencing dan telah dihantar ke Makmal Dadah dan Penyelidikan, Jabatan Patologi, Hospital Kuala Lumpur dan telah disahkan mengandungi Amphetamine dan Mehtamphetamine. RAYUAN OLEH OKT SEBELUM OKT DIHUKUM [7] OKT melalui peguambela yang mewakilinya telah membuat rayuan seperti berikut: “Dengan izin puan, saya ada 10-point untuk Mahkamah mulia ini kenapa OKT saya percaya satu bon berkelakuan baik bercagar dibawah seksyen 39(A)(1) ADB adalah sesuai dengan mengambil kira hal keadaan dalam kes ini. Point mitigasi pertama saya adalah pengakuan salah OKT yang saya percaya pengakuan salah OKT telah menjimatkan masa dan kos Mahkamah yang mulia ini begitu juga pihak pendakwaan dan saksi – saksi pendakwaan. S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Seterusnya point kedua adalah OKT adalah pesalah kali pertama dalam kes dadah dan tidak pernah disabitkan oleh mana – mana Mahkamah di Malaysia ataupun di luar Malaysia berkenaan dengan kes dadah. Point mitigasi ketiga adalah OKT telah pun melahirkan rasa insaf, kesal dan bersalah dia mengaku janji tidak akan mengulangi kesalahan ini dan akan menjauhi diri daripada najis dadah dan memohon maaf kepada Mahkamah mulia ini. Point mitigasi keempat Puan Magistrate adalah, OKT telahpun berada dalam tahanan penjara selama 85 hari sebelum dia telah dijamin keluar saya percaya adalah daripada 13hb Jun 2022 sehingga 5hb September 2022 dimana pada 5hb September 2022 dia telahpun dijamin dan saya percaya sebab dia tidak dijamin dahulu, minta maaf puan pada 5hb September 2022. Tempoh tersebut dia tidak dijamin sebab saya percaya the earlier case masa dia tuduh kali pertama dituduh adalah berkenaan dengan kes Seksyen 39(A)(2) ADB yang diperuntukkan adalah satu unbailable offence dan sebab itu dia tidak dijamin. Namun demikian apabila charge telah jatuh kepada Seksyen 39(A)(1) ADB and bail was offered and keluarganya telah jamin OKT. Saya percaya tempoh 85 hari telahpun menjadi satu hukuman dan satu hukuman saya percaya yang amat keras dengan mengambil kira keadaan kesihatan OKT yang dia kena that he has go thru dalam penjara. Faktor kelima adalah OKT setelah ditahan telah memberi kerjasama sepenuhnya kepada pihak polis dan saya percaya dia hadir ke Mahkamah setiap kali dipanggil. Faktor mitigasi keenam adalah kesihatan OKT Puan Magistrate. OKT adalah seorang pesakit HIV Puan, saya percaya Puan will be familiar dengan HIV dan penyakit aids adalah satu common knowledge, saya percaya Mahkamah boleh ambil judicial notice dimana sakit HIV tiada penawar and seriously an adversely compromise quality of life of seorang atau sesiapa yang mengidap penyakit HIV. Mereka perlu ambil banyak ubat in everyday of life bagi memastikan immune system mereka S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 tidak compromise to the point that apa – apa hukuman ataupun any bacteria whatsoever would be treat to the life of OKT, Puan Magistrate so ini juga compromise hidup dia daripada segi family, bergaul dengan kawan and the psychology effect and physiological effect daripada menjadi seorang pengidap penyakit HIV and its adalah amat ketara Puan Magistrate and mereka terpaksa hidup dengan hidup mereka dengan amat berhati hati daripada any contact terutamanya kita masih belum recover dari Covid 19 walaupun sekatan pergerakan is no longer around tapi Covid 19 is still around Puan Magistrate and saya percaya WHO baru announce that recently ada the new strain of Covid 19 meskipun the whole world sudah at the some extend tidak ambil Covid 19 tidak serius namun demikian seseorang yang ada sakit HIV, any treat of disease is treat for their life. Selain daripada sakit HIV, OKT juga mempunyai sakit atau pun Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and actually this is the result from sakit dia HIV tu lah. Apabila seseorang ada sakit HIV all sort of the disease will come sebab system immune yang tidak compromise. Saya move on dengan factor mitigasi ke tujuh dimana tanggungan OKT. OKT menanggung ibu dia, diri sendiri dan isteri. OKT disebabkan keadaan kesihatan dan tanggungan dia, dia tidak mampu memegang apa – apa kerja yang stressful sekarang dia kerja sebagai pemandu e- hailing, gaji tidak tetap tidak banyak dan saya percaya dalam linkungan RM100 sehari. Seterusnya point mitigasi kelapan, OKT is the only one menjaga ibunya, ibu dia yang uzur yang memerlukan jagaan rapi. Umur ibu OKT 54 tahun dan ia mengidap sakit Osteoartritis Tahap 4 dan juga Dyslipedemi iaitu satu high kolestol kronik dan saya percaya mitigasi bertulis saya, saya telah lampirkan kesemua bukti – bukti supporting document yang dialami oleh OKT dan ibu OKT dan juga jika saya boleh movement ke Point mitigasi kesembilan, kesesakan penjara diakibatkan oleh Covid-19, so pada waktu kini saya merayu Mahkamah yang Mulia ini S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 untuk mengambil kira judicial notice dimana kesesakan penjara, saya percaya seperti mana Mahkamah ketahui penjara pada ketika ini kapasiti telah pun about roughly lebih daripada 120 percent sebab there are too many persons who are in custody. Saya percaya tidak keperluan lagi tambah lagi seorang dan diletakkan dalam penjara selama 2 tahun lagi dan mengambil kira wabak influenza right now yang tengah spread dan juga wabak Covid 19 yang masih imprevent dan juga mengambil kira penjara yang sesak semestinya its not condusive for the spread of disease and seseorang mempunyai sakit HIV dan juga AIDS sememangnya tidak sesuai diletakkan dalam satu keadaan penjara yang sesak dan juga compact dan juga yang mempunyai masalah hygiene. Faktor mitigasi kesepuluh dan juga terakhir. Kepentingan awam, saya juga sebagai hujahan balas kepada rakan bijaksanan Puan DPP yang tadi telah ungkitkan kepentingan awam, she raised the issue kepentingan awam saya berhujah di dalam kes ini kepentingan awam memihak kepada pihak OKT disebabkan saya percaya orang – orang, banduan – banduan boleh di katakan sebagai orang awam juga dan saya juga percaya ini tidak ada benefit atau no interest and only detriment sahaja timbul daripada letakkan seseorang yang mengidap penyakit HIV di dalam penjara yang sesak. Saya merayu kepada Mahkamah Mulia ini kepentingan awam ini memihak kepada OKT untuk tidak dimasukkan ke dalam penjara mengambil kira hal keadaan, dia juga ada masalah kesihatan yang teruk yang tidak compromise dan ibu juga umur 54 tahun will not have anyone to taking care. Ibunya juga adalah seorang awam oleh itu kepentingan awam akan mengambil kira kepenting ibu juga.Seterusnya saya juga sebagai conclusion saya menekankan Puan Magistrate bahawa terdapat banyak case law yang telah pun case seperti mana penjara mandatori adalah contoh Seksyen 39(A)(1) ADB, Seksyen 39C ADB, Seksyen 403 Kanun Keseksaan, Seksyen 6(1) Akta Bahan – Bahan Hakisan dan Letupan, dan juga kes – kes serius seperti kes rogol dibawah seksyen 376 Kanun Kesesakan dimana dalam mitigasi bertulis saya telah bawa perhatian Puan S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Magistarte kes Nor Afizal Azizan v. PP, kes Mahkamah Rayuan dimana dalam kes tersebut satu bon berkelakuan baik telah diberikan. Saya percaya di dalam kes rogol definitely satu isu yang mengambil kira kepentingan awam yang prioritize at the higher level namun demikian Seksyen 294 CPC tetap diberikan yang terdapat banyak kes dimana Seksyen 39(A)(1) telah diberikan Seksyen 294 CPC. Infact, Puan Magistrate saya membawa perhatian kepada satu kes Magistrate Kuala Lumpur 1 dua minggu lepas je puan, Seksyen 39(A)(1) dua pertuduhan Seksyen 39(A)(1) Puan Magistrate Atiqah binti Mohammed telah memberikan bon berkelakuan baik dibawah seksyen 173 CPC dan bukannya Seksyen 294 CPC dan dalam kes tersebut sabitan tidak direkodkan untuk Seksyen 39(A)(1) untuk dua pertuduhan Seksyen 39(A)(1) so saya percaya untuk seksyen 39(A)(1) adalah satu kes yang serius saya tak dispute tetapi saya percaya dalam keadaan ini satu bon berkelakuan baik dibawah Seksyen 294 CPC adalah satu perintah yang bersesuai dalam kes ini so sama ada bon berkelakuan baik harus diberikan atau tidak depends on the fact of the case requirement and the facts of in this case saya percaya dengan sesungguhnya saya demand the just and right bon berkelakuan baik diberikan dan juga dengan ambil kira kepentingan awam.” HUJAHAN BALAS OLEH TPR KE ATAS RAYUAN PEGUAMBELA OKT [8] Pihak pendakwaan pula telah mengemukakan hujahan seperti berikut: “Dengan izin puan, kekerapan dalam kes dadah ini tidak wajar Bon berkelakuan baik kerana sekiranya diberikan ia tidak akan memberikan pengajaran yang sewajarnya. Hukuman berbentuk penjara adalah lebih sesuai untuk OKT insaf dan tidak mengulangi kesalahan ini dan saya pohon Mahkamah mengambil kira berat dadah iaitu 13.46-gram Methaphetamine Puan dan bon juga seolah S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 – olah memberi impressive bahawa kesalahan dadah boleh dipandang ringan dan tidak menjaga kepentingan awam Puan. Saya percaya kepentingan awam yang ditunjukkan melalui hukuman berat berbentuk deterent bukan sahaja memberi peringatan kepada OKT secara individu tetapi juga secara keseluruhan kepada masyarakat secara umum. Itu sahaja Puan” HUJAHAN BALAS OLEH PEGUAMBELA OKT TERHADAP HUJAHAN PEMBERATAN TPR [9] Hujahan balas oleh Peguambela OKT terhadap Hujahan pemberatan oleh TPR seperti berikut: “Puan Magistrate, jika di izinkan hanya satu point untuk saya emphasis. OKT telahpun dihukum dan dia telah duduk dalam penjara selama 85 hari dan saya percaya that itself telah menjadi satu hukuman yang telah dijalani oleh OKT so ini bukan lah situasi dimana OKT telah dijamin at the first opportunity dan dia telah keluar at the first opportunity. Jika sekiranya bon diberikan technically dia tidak dihukum secara langsung Puan. Ini adalah satu kes dimana OKT telah berada dalam penjara selama 85 hari, saya percaya 85 hari telah memberi satu pengajaran yang kukuh dengan mengambil kira keadaan kesihatan yang dialami that he will carry with himself until the day he dies. Walaupun saya admit Puan penyakit HIV ini tidak kaitan dengan kes ini namun demikian saya merayu belas kasihan Puan Magistrate mengambilkira the suffering he would go thru especially sekiranya dia diberikan hukuman penjara 2 tahun, dia perlu carrying the suffering dalam penjara dan put himself dalam S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 hrmmm argument can be made that bahawa he is in treat kepada banduan – banduan lain dalam penjara mengambilkira dia ada sakit HIV dan sekiranya dia dirogol atau anything kalau ada gaduh dan ada kecederaan dan ada campuran darah, penyakit HIV boleh transfer kepada banduan – banduan lain dan kalau ada share makanan antara banduan dan ada cut di dalam mulut, ada risiko penyakit HIV boleh transfer kepada banduan banduan lain juga. Saya pecaya dalam kes ini saya merayu belas kasihan Puan Magistrate dengan mengambilkira dia telah pun menjalani hukuman penjara 85 hari dan tidak sesuai untuk satu hukuman penjara selama 2 tahun dan saya merayu untuk satu bon berkelakuan baik.” PRINSIP DAN ALASAN PENGHUKUMAN [10] Dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap OKT, Mahkamah diberikan budibicara yang luas bagi menentukan hukuman yang setimpal ke atas kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh pesalah-pesalah. Namun begitu, dalam melaksanakan budibicara tersebut, Mahkamah haruslah bertindak secara “judiciously” dalam menentukan hukuman yang sepatutnya dikenakan berlandaskan prinsip-prinsip penghukuman yang relevan. [11] Ashworth dalam “Judicial Independence and Sentencing Reform in The Future of Sentencing [1982] Cambridge University Institute of Criminology, pada muka surat 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, S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 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.” [12] 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”). [13] Secara amnya, di antara faktor-faktor yang relevan untuk dipertimbangkan ialah seperti berikut: Faktor-Faktor Pemberatan (a) Keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan; (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 (f) Kepentingan awam. Faktor-Faktor Peringanan S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (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. [14] Tidak wujudnya suatu “hard and fast rule” apa yang dianggapkan sebagai suatu “hukuman yang setimpal” atau sebaliknya. Ia 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. [15] Berbalik kepada kes ini, Mahkamah telah menjatuhkan hukuman dengan memerintahkan OKT supaya menjalani Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawak Seksyen 294 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah untuk dua (2) tahun bercagaran RM3,000.00 dengan seorang penjamin bagi pertuduhan pertama, serta denda sebanyak RM1,500.00 gagal bayar tiga (3) bulan penjara dengan dua (2) tahun pengawasan bagi pertuduhan kedua. Bagi memudahkan rujukan, Mahkamah ini perturunkan semula peruntukan di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah yang menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 “294. First offender (1) When any person has been convicted of any offence before any Court if it appears to the Court that regard being had to the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the offender or to the trivial nature of the offence or to any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed it is expedient that the offender be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties and during such period as the Court may direct to appear and receive judgment if and when called upon and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. (2) … (3) … (4) … (5) … (6) This section shall not apply – (a) If the offender is charged with a serious offence; or (b) If the offender is charged with the commission of an act of domestic violence as defined under section 2 of the Domestic Violence Act 1994.” [16] Manakala “serious offence” adalah seperti yang ditafsirkan dalam Kanun Keseksaan seperti berikut: “Serious Offence S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 52B. The words “serious offence” denotes an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more.” [17] Dalam kes ini, OKT telah memilih untuk mengaku bersalah pada kedua-dua pertuduhan iaitu di bawah seksyen 39A (1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Hukuman penjara dua (2) tahun adalah mandatori bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39A (1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 serta dikenakan hukuman sebat tidak kurang daripada tiga (3) sebatan tetapi tidak lebih daripada 9 sebatan. Manakala bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, hukuman yang diperuntukkan adalah denda tidak lebih daripada lima ribu ringgit atau dikenakan hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak lebih daripada dua tahun. [18] Memandangkan hukuman bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39A (1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 adalah penjara tidak kurang dua (2) tahun dan tidak lebih lima (5) tahun, maka kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT bukanlah kesalahan yang serius mengikut seksyen 52B Kanun Keseksaan dan oleh yang demikian, Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Keseksaan layak diberikan kepada OKT. PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 294 KANUN TATACARA JENAYAH [19] Mahkamah ini telah melakukan kajian dan mendapati terdapat banyak kes yang telah mempertimbangkan Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Jenayah. Di antaranya ialah seperti kes Lim Kim Poh v PP [2000] 3 MLJ 411, di mana Mahkamah telah menyatakan seperti berikut: “Before section 294 will apply, certain conditions need to be satisfied. Firstly, an adult offender must have been convicted for an offence punishable with imprisonment. Secondly it must appear to the court, regard being had to the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the offender or to the trivial nature of the offence or to any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender be released on probation of good conduct. The provisions of section 294 CPC do not allow any court to go to the length of saying that in every case of a first offender the antecedents of the convicted person are necessarily such as to make it expedient to bind him over. Each individual case must be considered on its own merits and must be examined with a view to ascertaining whether, having regard to any of the matters mentioned in section 294, binding over is in all the circumstances of the case expedient.” [20] Seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah turut diberikan di dalam kes yang lebih berat yang melibatkan kecederaan terhadap mangsa. Merujuk kepada kes PP v. Yeong Yin Choy [1976] 2 MLJ 267, Tertuduh telah dituduh di bawah seksyen 324 Kanun Keseksaan di mana Tertuduh telah mengaku bersalah dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan tersebut. Mahkamah Majistret kemudiannya telah mengaplikasi seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah di mana Tertuduh telah diperintahkan untuk menjalani S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Bon Kelakuan Baik bercagaran RM1,000 selama tempoh dua (2) tahun. Keputusan dari Mahkamah Majistret telah turut disahkan di Mahkamah Tinggi di mana telah diputuskan seperti berikut: “Section 294 of the Code provides as one of the prerequisites to the application of its provisions that there has to be a conviction for an offence punishable with imprisonment. Read literally, that may of course be taken to mean just that and no more, but I would have thought that if it were intended by the legislature to restrict the application of the provisions of that section to offences punishable with imprisonment only without the option of any alternative penalty, it would have been expressly so provided either in so many words or at least perhaps by the interpolation of the adverb “only” in the appropriate place.” ISU SAMA ADA BON KELAKUAN BAIK BOLEH DIBERIKAN DI MANA HUKUMAN PENJARA ADALAH MANDATORI BAGI KESALAHAN [21] Dalam kes ini, OKT telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39A (1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 di mana hukuman yang diperuntukkan adalah penjara tidak kurang dua (2) tahun dan tidak lebih lima (5) tahun. Memandangkan hukuman penjara adalah mandatori, maka isu yang timbul adalah adakah Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah boleh diberikan di mana hukuman penjara adalah mandatori bagi kesalahan. S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [22] Bagi menjawab isu ini, Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes Winston Rajah v PP [1999] 1 CLJ 315 di mana Yang Arif Richard Malanjum telah menyatakan di dalam penghakimannya bahawa: “The existence of a minimum sentence does not deprive this Court from exercising its discretion under section 294 of the CPC.” [23] Manakala di dalam kes PP V Bahar Bin Abu [2007] 4 CLJ 604-pula telah dinyatakan seperti berikut: The words "punishable by imprisonment" found in section 294 CPC indicate that it is applicable to offences that "can" be punished by imprisonment. Both a mandatory and an optional imposition of a sentence of imprisonment are instances where a court "can" punish by imprisonment. It would therefore follow that the court has a discretion to utilize the section even where the sentence prescribed is a mandatory term of imprisonment. If the circumstances of the offence are "inappropriate" for the application of section 294 CPC the court can decline to exercise its discretion to use the section (See Teh Ah Cheng v. PP [1976] 1 LNS 116 [1976] 2 MLJ 186). [24] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes PP V Bahar Bin Abu [2007] 4 CLJ 604 seperti di atas di mana Mahkamah telah mengesahkan Bon Kelakuan Baik yang telah diberikan oleh Majistret sebelum ini, di mana Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman telah memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 “Under s. 411 PC, a court may impose either imprisonment or fine or both. But if the stolen property is a motor vehicle or component part (as in the present case), then the term of imprisonment to be imposed is no less than six months and not more than five years and additionally a fine. Section 294 CPC envisages that where a court is by law empowered to impose the punishment of imprisonment, it may, in its discretion provided one or more of the criteria set out in the section are met, direct that the accused be released on a bond rather than be imprisoned. Section 411 PC is such a section. It provides for imprisonment particularly in relation to motor vehicles as in the present case and specifically utilises the words “shall be punished with imprisonment”. The authorities have established that the words “shall be punished with imprisonment” is mandatory in nature. However, notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the provision of imprisonment provided under s. 411 PC, it is open to the magistrate to deal with the offender under s. 294 CPC. This is established by the authorities and also in view of the express exclusionary sections in the PC where ss. 173A and 294 CPC are not to be used. It followed therefore that the learned magistrate did not fall into error when dealing with the accused under s. 294 CPC in respect of an offence under s. 411 PC. Although the learned magistrate did not appear to have fully considered the pre- requisites specified under s. 294 CPC, he had arrived at the correct decision.” [25] Bagi kesalahan-kesalahan yang melibatkan narkotik atau milikan dadah, hasil kajian Mahkamah ini juga mendapati terdapat banyak kes di mana Mahkamah telah memberikan Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Di antaranya ialah PP v. Muhammad Fadzil Mohd Amin [2019] 1 LNS 2127 di mana S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Tertuduh dalam kes tersebut berumur 30 tahun dan tiada rekod lampau, telah diperintahkan menjalani Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah atas kesalahan memiliki dadah di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39A (1) Akta yang sama. Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman dalam kes tersebut telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “In this appeal, the respondent had mitigated that he was remorseful of his actions and determined to start anew and started off by securing himself the job as a dispatch with a private company to support his family of two young children. The respondent further pleaded not to be sent to prison. The respondent had pleaded guilty to the first, third and fourth charges earlier. This Court agrees with the decision of the learned magistrate in exercising her discretion in not sentencing the respondent to prison but instead subjected the respondent to an order of good behavior bond under section 294 of the CPC. This Court in agreeing with the learned magistrate, further opines that remorse is itself a “sentence” on the respondent. Further, it will not be too far off to construe that when overwhelmed by remorse and penitence, those feeling of guilt and mental turmoil of being convicted by a crime, can themselves be construed as adequate and appropriate sentence on the respondent.” [26] Begitu juga dalam kes PP v Lee Chong Moi [2018] 5 LNS 196 dan PP v Gurdave Singh Sarjit Singh [2018] 5 LNS 302, Tertuduh masing-masing telah diperintahkan untuk menjalani Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah bagi kes melibatkan seksyen 39A (1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [27] Seterusnya, sekiranya Bon Kelakuan Baik ini dilanggari oleh Tertuduh, maka Mahkamah boleh menjatuhkan hukuman mengikut peruntukan hukuman yang asal. Hal ini adalah berdasarkan kepada peruntukan seterusnya di bawah subseksyen 294 (3), (4), dan (5) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Bagi memudahkan rujukan, berikut diperturunkan semula peruntukan-peruntukan tersebut: “(3) If a Court having power to deal with the offender in respect of his original offence, or any Court of summary jurisdiction, is satisfied by information on oath that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his bond, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension. (4) Any offender when apprehended on any such warrant shall, if not immediately brought before the Court having power to sentence him, be brought before a Magistrate, and the Magistrate may either remand him by warrant until the time at which he is required by his bond to appear for judgment or until the sitting of a Court having power to deal with his original offence, or 1may admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for judgment. (5) The offender, when so remanded, may be committed to prison and the warrant of remand shall order that he be brought before the Court before which he was bound to appear for judgment or to answer as to his conduct since his release.” S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [28] Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes Tan Kah Eng v PP [1965] 2 MLJ 272 di mana Mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “It seemed to me that a discharge subject to such a condition would deter the appellant from committing a similar offence for twelve months more effectively than a fine within her means, because in the event of her committing another offence during the twelve months she could be punished for that offence as well as for the original offence.” [29] Manakala dalam kes PP v Kandasamy Muniandy [2005] 2 CLJ 201, Mahkamah juga telah menyatakan seperti berikut: “Majistret yang berkenaan juga telah mengambil kira isu kepentingan awam dan telah menjelaskan bahawa kepentingan awam masih terjaga kerana dalam tempoh penentang berada di bawah perintah supaya berkelakuan baik itu, iaitu tempoh tiga tahun, penentang perlu sentiasa berwaspada daripada melakukan sebarang kegiatan jenayah. Jika tidak, bukan saja dia akan dihadapkan ke mahkamah untuk dihukum dengan hukuman yang diperuntukkan bagi kesalahannya itu di bawah seksyen 411 Kanun Keseksaan, wang jaminan juga akan dilucuthakkan.” [30] Berbalik kepada kes ini, setelah mengambil kira pengakuan salah OKT, dan menilai hujahan peguam bela, Mahkamah ini telah berpuas hati dan telah memerintahkan supaya OKT menjalani Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 294 S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah selama tempoh dua (2) tahun bercagaran RM3,000.00 dengan seorang penjamin. [31] Berdasarkan hujahan peguam bela, OKT berumur 29 tahun dan bekerja sambilan sebagai pemandu e-hailing Skylift dimana gaji tak tetap dan dalam linkungan amaun RM100.00 sehari. OKT tidak dapat bekerja sepenuh masa disebabkan keadaan kesihatan OKT. OKT juga menanggung ibu dan isterinya. Ibunya berumur 54 tahun yang menghidap sakit Osteoartritis Tahap 4 dan juga Dyslipedemia. OKT bertanggungjawab untuk menjaga ibunya dan membawa ibunya ke hospital/klinik setiap bulan. Selain itu, OKT juga mempunyai tanggungan sewa rumah dan utility. Kesemuanya tanggungan OKT adalah dalam lingkungan RM1,500.00 sebulan. Keadaan kewangan OKT adalah tidak baik dan teruk seumpama kais pagi makan pagi, kais petang makan petang. [32] Selain itu, Peguambela OKT juga telah berhujah dan memberikan berapa factor mitigasi untuk dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah ini. Antara factor – factor mitigasi peguambela OKT yang Mahkamah ini juga turut mengambil kira sebagai factor paling penting adalah ini kesalahan pertama OKT. Meskipun pengakuan salah OKT bukanlah pada kesempatan yang terawal, namun Mahkamah ini melihat bahawa pengakuan salah ini adalah sebagai tanda penginsafan daripada OKT sendiri. OKT telah dengan rela hati telah mengaku salah, dan pengakuan salah OKT pada peringkat ini telah menjimatkan masa dan kos semua pihak. Masa yang telah dijimatkan ini boleh digunakan untuk mendengar kes-kes lain yang lebih serius. S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [33] Faktor kedua OKT telah memberikan kerjasama sepenuhnya kepada pihak polis semasa siasatan polis, tidak cuba melarikan diri ataupun melawan polis. OKT juga patuh dengan arahan Mahkamah di mana OKT telah hadir pada setiap kali sebutan kes dijalankan tanpa gagal. [34] Faktor ketiga adalah OKT telah melahirkan rasa kesal, bersalah dan insaf, dan berjanji tidak akan mengulangi lagi kesalahan ini dan akan menjauhi diri daripada najis dadah. Ini terbukti daripada pengakuan bersalah OKT. [35] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Raja Izzuddin Shah v. PP [1978] 1 LNS 165 di mana Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes tersebut telah menyatakan seperti berikut: “Considering all the facts before the Court I have come to the conclusion that the public interest is in no way better served by committing the appellant to prison. The primary purpose of punishment is reformatory and it is clear in this case that the appellant has realised the fact that notwithstanding his status he is not above the law. He has also clearly stated that he has repented and would not make the same mistake again. Under the circumstances it is my opinion that the public interest is best served by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and substituting therefore an order under s. 294(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code that the appellant enter into a bond with one surety in the sum of one thousand dollars for a period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.” S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [36] Faktor keempat, OKT telahpun berada di dalam tahanan penjara selama 85 hari dari 13.6.2023 sehingga 5.9.2022, di mana pada 5.9.2022 dia telah dijamin. Mahkamah mendapati tempoh tersebut telah menjadi satu pengajaran kepada OKT. [37] Faktor kelima, OKT adalah seorang pesakit HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), satu penyakit yang menyebabkan AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) pada tahap terakhir dimana OKT perlu makan ubat setiap hari tanpa gagal untuk memastikan sakit HIV tersebut tidak merosotkan kesihatan OKT dengan lebih ketara. OKT juga perlu hadir ke hospital sekurang-kurangnya sekali setiap 6 bulan untuk memantau status HIVnya. Selain dari sakit HIV, OKT juga mempunyai sakit “fatty liver”, darah tinggi, kolesterol tinggi, dan sakit Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Peguambela OKT juga telah mengemukakan bukti-bukti dokumen penyakit OKT bagi pertimbangkan Mahkamah ini. [38] Peguambela OKT telah merayu kepada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini untuk mengambil judicial notice bahawa Wabak Covid-19 masih berleluasa lagi meskipun semua sekatan pergerakan disebabkan Covid-19 telah dihentikan atas sebab-sebab ekonomi. Selain daripada Covid-19, wabak Influenza juga masih berleluasa dan amat contagious. Peguambela OKT telah merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya v. Mohd Ramzi Amin [2022] 1 LNS 2904 di mana Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut telah menyatakan seperti berikut: “[24] Mahkamah juga mengambil judicial notice bahawa kini berlaku kesesakan dalam penjara di negara ini dan risiko jangkitan virus Covid-19 yang masih belum reda.” S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [39] Di dalam hujahan mitigasi bertulis, Peguambela OKT juga telah rujuk kepada kes Pendakwaraya v Nor Farah Farhan Abdul Fattah [2021] 1 LNS 251 di perenggan 57, yang menyatakan bahawa: [57] Di dalam kes ini Mahkamah juga selain pertimbangan-pertimbangan di atas mengambilkira bahawa satu hukuman pemenjaraan bukan suatu pilihan yang perlu diiaksanakan jika terdapat opsyen atau pilihan lain dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. Ini adalah berikutan pandemik Covid-19 yang merebak dengan begitu mudah dan hebat di kalangan penjara-penjara dan banduan- banduan yang menghuninya. Isu ini tidak boleh dinafikan daripada menjadi pertimbangan Mahkamah dan diambil maklum oleh Mahkamah ini. [40] Mahkamah ini berpuas hati dengan hujahan peguam bela dan berdasarkan faktor-faktor yang telah dinyatakan di atas, Mahkamah ini percaya bahawa Mahkamah ini tidak keterlaluan apabila memerintahkan hukuman Bon Kelakuan Baik diberikan kepada OKT. Mahkamah ini telah memberikan penelitian yang maksima dan percaya bahawa adalah wajar OKT diberikan peluang untuk berubah dan memulakan kehidupannya yang baru. [41] Mahkamah ini juga berpendapat bahawa peruntukan seksyen 294(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tersebut tidak mensyaratkan supaya kesemua aktor pertimbangan dalam seksyen itu hendaklah dipenuhi oleh seorang pesalah. Sebaliknya, ia menggunakan perkataan “or” yang mana hanya 1 faktor sudah memadai untuk mengguna pakai peruntukan tersebut, sebagai contoh “character, antecedents, age, S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 health or mental condition”, atau “trivial nature of the offence” atau “extenuating circumstances”. Dalam kes ini, setelah mendengar rayuan peguambela OKT, Mahkamah berpandangan “antecedent’ iaitu latarbelakang OKT dan kesihatan OKT yang serius dimana HIV tahap terakhir adalah faktor yang sangat relevan dalam mencapai keputusan untuk meletakkan OKT di bawah bon jaminan berkelakuan baik. [42] Mahkamah ini juga percaya dengan menjatuhkan hukuman di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah ke atas OKT, kepentingan awam masih terpelihara di mana OKT perlu sentiasa berwaspada dengan sebarang kegiatan jenayah dalam sepanjang tempoh Bon Kelakuan Baik itu diberikan. Seperti yang telah diputuskan dalam 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 S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 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”. [43] Mahkamah ini juga berpendapat bahawa sesuatu bentuk hukuman tidak hanya perlu berbentuk untuk menghukum tetapi perlu juga mempunyai unsur untuk memulihkan atau rehabilitasi. Prinsip “justice must be tempered with mercy” perlu digunakan dalam keadaan tertentu dan Mahkamah merasakan ianya sesuai untuk diaplikasikan di sini. Tujuan hukuman perlu juga dengan objektif untuk OKT menjadi insan yang lebih baik yang boleh menyumbang kepada masyarakat oleh itu prinsip “deterrent” semata tidak sepatutnya menjadi satu-satunya pertimbangan dalam menjatuhkan hukuman. Pertimbangan ini adalah jelas terdapat di dalam beberapa kes rujukan berikut: [44] Di dalam kes PP v. Rashid Ramli [2019] 1 LNS 919 isu ini telah disentuh: “Public interest therefore not only should reflect the abhorrence of the society against the crime by the imposition of elements of retribution and deterrence in the sentence, but should also ensure the promotion of rehabilitation and reformation on the part of the accused himself. “ [45] Di dalam Amit Budin v. Public Prosecutor [1994] 1 LNS 8 diputuskan; “I am of the view that the object of turning the appellant into a good citizen can be better achieved by not sending him to prison.” [46] Di dalam nas PP v. Lee Lai Choi [2009] 1 CLJ 312 di nyatakan: S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 “Kepentingan awam bukanlah hanya menuntut seorang tertuduh itu dipenjarakan. Sekiranya tertuduh boleh berubah tanpa dipenjarakan, ini juga boleh dianggap sebagai mengambilkira kepentingan awam. “ [47] Di dalam nas PP v. Tan Heng Lee [2013] 5 LNS 70 juga factor rehabilitasi ditekankan: “Namun demikian, mahkamah berbalik kepada tujuan hukuman (aim of sentencing) yang mana selain retributive, deterrent dan prevention terdapat juga satu lagi matlamat iaitu rehabilit ative aim yang mana matlamat yang digambarkan atas dasar ini adalah untuk menggalakkan perayu menjadi seorang insan yang mematuhi undang-undang serta rakyat yang bertanggungjawab dengan harapan bahawa perayu akan berubah sekaligus menghormati undang-undang dan peraturan yang wujud.” [48] Mengikut nas-nas Amit Budin v. Public Prosecutor, PP v. Lee Lai Choi dan PP v. Rashid Ramli yang telah dirujuk diatas nyata menunjukkan bukan hanya hukuman pemenjaraan yang memberi penekanan kepada kepentingan awam akan tetapi hukuman yang berbentuk rehabilitasi juga boleh menjurus kepada memeiihara kepentingan awam. [49] Mahkamah dengan ini berpendapat bahawa tiada keperluan untuk OKT dipenjarakan kerana pemenjaraan itu tidak semestinya memelihara kepentingan awam di dalam situasi ini. S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [50] Mahkamah juga mengambil judicial notice bahawa kini berlaku kesesakan dalam penjara di negara ini dan risiko jangkitan virus Covid-19 yang masih belum reda. Oleh yang demikian, sebagai seorang pesalah pertama walaupun bukan “youthful offender”, hukuman bon jaminan di bawah s. 294(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah adalah wajar diberikan kerana OKT tidak boleh melanggar peruntukan undang-undang dalam tempoh tersebut dan sebenarnya ia bukanlah sesuatu yang mudah. Jika OKT melanggar syarat-syarat bon jaminan maka dia akan dimasukkan ke penjara untuk menjalani hukuman yang asal tersebut. [51] Manakala bagi hukuman denda sebanyak RM1,500.00 gagal bayar dua (2) bulan penjara dengan dua (2) tahun pengawasan yang telah diberikan bagi pertuduhan kedua, Mahkamah ini percaya ia adalah mencukupi, tidak terlalu rendah dan juga tidak berlebihan. Seperti yang telah diputuskan dalam kes Lisa Christina a/p Balan v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 349, di mana Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa hukuman penjara adalah tidak sesuai bagi pesalah pertama: “Hukuman denda sepatutnya diberikan keutamaan dalam kes ini. Majistret sewajarnya mengambil kira faktor bahawa Tertuduh/Pemohon merupakan seorang pesalah pertama dan tidak mempunyai apa-apa rekod sabitan lampau sebelum ini dan sepatutnya diberi peluang untuk berubah menjadi seorang manusia yang lebih berguna kepada masyarakat dan keluarganya sendiri.” S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 KESIMPULAN [52] Berdasarkan kes-kes yang telah dibincangkan di atas, Mahkamah ini percaya adalah tidak keterlaluan untuk memberikan Bon Kelakuan Baik di bawah seksyen 294 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah ke atas OKT di mana Mahkamah ini telah berpuas hati bahawa OKT telah memenuhi kriteria-kriteria yang telah ditetapkan dalam seksyen 294 tersebut. [53] Walau pun OKT diberikan Bon Kelakuan Baik, namun kepentingan awam masih terpelihara di mana OKT perlu sentiasa berwaspada dengan sebarang kegiatan jenayah dalam sepanjang tempoh Bon Kelakuan Baik itu diberikan. Hukuman yang dikenakan adalah setimpal setelah mengambil-kira secara keseluruhan faktor-faktor mitigasi dan pemberat yang telah dihujahkan oleh pihak pembelaan dan pendakwaan. Bertarikh pada: 10 Januari 2024 (ARUNJOTHY M. SELVARAJU) Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 3 Kompleks Mahkamah Kuala Lumpur S/N Q5VT3rUXkOgJfYN6rfHVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCvC-635-11/2022

PLAINTIF DATO' THRUNGANASAMBANTHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM DEFENDAN PEMBINAAN KOTA LAKSAMANA (MELAKA) SDN.BHD

The law on summary judgment is trite. The well-established legal principles applicable to applications for summary judgment have been clearly and expressly deliberated as provided by statutory provisions and decided cases. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be given to summary process under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012). The Plaintiff must satisfy the primary requirements in an application for a summary judgment. (see also the cases of Gunung Bayu Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Pembinaan Perlis Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 332, United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd v Palm & Vegetable Oils (M) Sdn Bhd [1983] 1 MLJ 206, Percetakan Solai Sdn Bhd v Kin Kwok Daily News Sdn Bhd & Anor [1986] 1 MLJ 240 and Doshi v Yeoh Tiong Lay [1975] 1 MLJ 85; just to name a few). By virtue of sections 121,124,126 and particularly under section 128(2) of LPA, the Defendant had lost its statutory rights to challenge Bill No.18/2021. Accordingly, the Defendant did not raise any merit in the defence, nor there is any triable issue or any other reason for this case to be tried.

11/01/2024

YA Dr Suzana binti Muhamad Said

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d8b403f5-5c41-44c5-af98-053978b00c4d&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR WRIT SUMMON NO. : WA-22NCVC-635-11/2022 BETWEEN DATO’ THRUNGANASAMBANTHAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM (I/C No.: 6801214-10-6591) [Peguambela dan Peguamcara yang telah Memfailkan tindakan ini sebagai pemilik tunggal dan pengamal profesion guaman di bawah nama dan gaya TETUAN JOSHUA SAMBANTHAN & ASSOC] … PLAINTIFF AND PEMBINAAN KOTA LAKSAMANA (MELAKA) SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT: 40873-T) … DEFENDANT 11/01/2024 22:58:00 WA-22NCvC-635-11/2022 Kand. 33 S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (ENCLOSURE 8) INTRODUCTION [1] This was an application by the Plaintiff to enter a Summary Judgment against the Defendant for the sum of RM1,066,000.00 being the outstanding legal fees for the legal services rendered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (Enclosure 8) in respect of a Johor Bahru High Court Suit No JA-22NCvC-206-11/2019 (Johor Bahru Suit). BRIEF FACTS [2] On 8.10.2020, the Plaintiff as a legal firm was appointed to represent the Defendant in the Johor Bahru Suit, of which by a Johor Bahru High Court Order dated 13.09.2020, the Defendant’s previous solicitors, Messrs. Richard Wee Chambers were recused. [3] Subsequent to the Plaintiff’s appointment, a Notice of Appointment dated 8.10.2020 and a Statement of Defence were filed to resist the claim by Syarikat Solaris Estate Sdn. Bhd., who was the Plaintiff in the Johor Bahru Suit. S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] On 7.7.2021, the Plaintiff discharged himself from representing the Defendant. [5] Thereafter, on 25.8.2021, the Plaintiff issued a Notice of Demand and Professional Bill No. 18/2021 (Bill No. 18/2021) demanding the Defendant to settle the said Professional Bill within seven (7) days from the date of receipt. However, the Defendant has failed, refused and did not settle Bill No. 18/2021. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION [6] The Plaintiff contended that he has carried out in filing all the necessary applications, affidavits, providing legal advice to the Defendant from time to time and filing the necessary written submissions for the Johor Bahru Suit. [7] The Plaintiff further contended that Bill No.18/2021 has been served to the Defendant and was duly acknowledged receipt by the Defendant on 26.8.2021 (Exhibit DTS-5) of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support and since 26.8.2021, the Defendant had not raised any objection or protest over the Plaintiff’s Bill which was lapsed for 1 year and 4 months. Further, S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 the Defendant did not contest nor have requested for Bill No. 18/2021 to be taxed in accordance to the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA). [8] The Plaintiff also contended that the Defendant has failed to raise any objections or protest since the Plaintiff’s Bill No. 18/2021 was served and acknowledged receipt by the Defendant. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION [9] The Defendant contended that it has no knowledge of the Plaintiff’s alleged Bill No.18/2021 and that the Plaintiff’s claim is rapacious, dishonest, excessive and disproportionate to the value of the services rendered. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Law on Summary Judgment [10] The law on summary judgment is trite. The well-established legal principles applicable to applications for summary judgment have been clearly and expressly deliberated as provided by statutory provisions and decided cases. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be given to summary process under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 2012 (ROC 2012). The Plaintiff must satisfy the primary requirements in an application for a summary judgment. (see also the cases of Gunung Bayu Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Pembinaan Perlis Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 332, United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd v Palm & Vegetable Oils (M) Sdn Bhd [1983] 1 MLJ 206, Percetakan Solai Sdn Bhd v Kin Kwok Daily News Sdn Bhd & Anor [1986] 1 MLJ 240 and Doshi v Yeoh Tiong Lay [1975] 1 MLJ 85; just to name a few) [11] In the case of Citibank NA v Ooi Boon Leong & 2 Ors [1981] 1 MLJ 282, the Federal Court held that “where all the issues are clear and the matter in 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.”. [12] The preconditions for the application of summary judgment were stated in the case of National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 300. The Federal Court held that: “For the purposes of an application under Order 14 the preliminary requirements are: i. The defendant must have entered an appearance; S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 ii. The statement of claim must have been served on the defendant, and; iii. The affidavit in support of the application must comply with the requirements of Rule 2 of the Order 14.”. [13] The Federal Court also held that: “[9] If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these considerations, the summons may be dismissed. If however, these considerations are satisfied, the plaintiff will have established a prima facie case and he comes entitled to judgment. The burden then shifts to the defendant to satisfy the Court why judgment should not be given against him [see Order 14 Rules 3 and 4(1)].”. [14] Thus, once the primary requirements have been satisfied, the burden then shifts to the Defendant to satisfy the court on the existence of a triable issue that warrants a trial and why judgment should not be entered against it (see also Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying (trading as KH Trading) & Anor [2006] 2 MLJ 685). [15] In this case, the Plaintiff has satisfied the court to fulfil the preconditions of the application for summary judgment as provided for under Order 14 Rule 2 of ROC 2012. Thus, the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case and entitled to a summary judgment. Therefore, the S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 burden has now shifted to the Defendant to prove that there is an existence of a triable issue which warrants a trial (see South East Asia Insurance Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia [1996] MLJU 642; [1998] 1 AMR 657). Triable Issues [16] What constitute a triable issue will depend on the facts or the laws arising from each case as disclosed in evidence before the Court (see Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400). [17] The matter at hand is about the payment for legal services rendered by the Plaintiff which Bill No.18/2021 was duly served on the Defendant. The fact that the Defendant did not respond to the Plaintiff’s Letter of Demand nor seek for the Plaintiff’s bill to be taxed in accordance to the Legal Profession Act 1976 shown that the contention by the Defendant was a mere denial by simply stating that it has not received Bill No. 18/2021 and disputing the contents of the bill. [18] In this regard, section 124 of LPA provides- (1) Except as authorized by this Act, no advocate and solicitor shall without the leave of the court commence or maintain any action for the recovery of any costs due for any business done by him until the expiration of one month after he has delivered to the party to be S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 charged therewith, or sent by post to, or left with him at, his office or place of business, dwelling house or last known place of abode, a bill of costs, which bill shall be signed either by the advocate and solicitor, or in the case of a partnership, by any of the partners, either with his own name or with the name or style of the partnership, or by another advocate and solicitor employed by the first-named advocate and solicitor or the partnership, or be enclosed in or accompanied by a letter, signed in the like manner, referring to the bill. (2) Where a bill is proved to have been delivered in compliance with subsection (1) it shall not be necessary in the first instance for the advocate and solicitor to prove the contents of the bill and it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown to be a bill bona fide complying with this Act. [19] Section 124 LPA was deliberated in S.P. Veloo Co. v Affin Bank Bhd [2017] MLJU 1042; [2017] 1 LNS 1041, where the Court of Appeal held - “[22] As we have stated earlier that a solicitor’s bill of costs has special protection by statute and section 124 gives the protection. It does not require the solicitor to prove the contents and it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown a bill bona fide complying with this Act…”. [20] In Templer Park Golf & Resort Bhd & Anor v Tetuan George Varughese [2010] 1 MLRH 583; [2010] 8 CLJ 754, it was held: “The contents of the solicitor's bill were presumed by law to be bona fide and the necessity to prove the contents of the bill and to tax the bill on the facts of this case did not arise due to several provisions of the LPA 1976. Under s 124(2) once the bill had been delivered in compliance with sub-section (1) it shall not be necessary in the first instance for the S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 advocate and solicitor to prove the contents of the bill and it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown to be a bill bona fide complying with this Act.”. [21] Generally, this means that based on section 124 of LPA, a solicitor is not required to prove the bill as the bill is presumed bona fide bill and in compliance of LPA until the contrary is shown. [22] Further, section 121(1)(a) and (b) of LPA provides- “121 Where remuneration of advocate and solicitor not subject of agreement. (1) Where the remuneration of an advocate and solicitor in respect of contentious business done by him is not the subject of an agreement made pursuant to section 116, the solicitor’s bill of costs may at the option of the advocate and solicitor either contain detailed items or be for a gross sum: Provided that— (a) at any time before service upon him of a writ or other originating process for the recovery of costs included in a gross sum bill and before the expiration of three months from the date of the delivery to him of the bill, the party chargeable therewith may require the advocate and solicitor to deliver to him in lieu of the cost a bill containing detailed items, and the gross sum bill shall thereupon be of no effect; (b) where an action is commenced on a gross sum bill, the Court shall, if so requested by the party chargeable therewith before the expiration of one month from the service on that party of the writ or other originating process, order that the bill shall be taxed; [23] Moreover, section 126(1) of LPA provides- S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 “126 An order for taxation of costs to be made within 6 months of delivery of bill of costs. (1) An order for the taxation of a bill of costs delivered by any advocate and solicitor may be obtained by a petition as a matter of course by the party chargeable therewith, or by any person liable to pay the cost either to the party chargeable or to the advocate and solicitor, at any time within six months from the delivery of the bill, or, by the advocate and solicitor after the expiration of one calendar month, and within a year from, the delivery.”. [24] Bill No.18/2021 was served upon the Defendant on 25.08.2021 (Exhibit DTS-5). However, the Defendant failed to exercise its rights under section 121 and 126 of LPA. [25] In this regard, section 128 LPA further states- 128. Order for taxation of advocate and solicitor’s bill on notice given (1) After the expiration of six months from the delivery of a bill of costs, or after payment of the bill of costs, no order shall be made for taxation of a solicitor’s bill of costs, except upon notice to the advocates and solicitors and under special circumstances to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court [26] Accordingly, section 128 LPA provides that after the lapse of six (6) months from the delivery of Bill 18/2021, no order for taxation can be made. Further, section 128(2) LPA states that “(2) No such order for taxation shall in any event be made after the expiry of one year from the delivery of the bill of costs.”. S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [27] This Court finds that if a client has not exercised his/her rights under section 128(1) of the LPA, the right to taxation is lost. In the instant case, the Defendant did not seek taxation of Bill No. 18/2021 at any point in time and the period mentioned in section 128(2) of the LPA has expired. By operation of the statutory prohibition in section 128(2), the amount claimed in the Bill No. 18/2021 has become final and payable. It cannot be disputed or challenged and as such section 128(2) LPA sets in as an absolute bar which made the Defendant lost its statutory rights (See Tetuan Kang & Kang v Kirana Studio Sdn Bhd [2014] MLJU 1937). [28] Additionally, in the case of Tanjung Emas Sdn. Bhd. v Adnan Sundra & Low (mendakwa sebagai sebuah firma) [2001] MLJU 59; [2001] 7 MLRH 357, the Court held- “In any event matters relating to a solicitor's bill of costs are governed by the procedures prescribed under the Legal Profession Act 1967 where redress ought to be sought in the High Court under Part 1X thereof.”. CONCLUSION [29] Based on the aforesaid reasons and on balance of probabilities, this Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is straight forward. This is a clear-cut case for payment of the legal services S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 rendered under provisions of LPA. Hence, there is no triable issue which merits a full trial. [30] By virtue of sections 121,124,126 and particularly under section 128(2) of LPA, the Defendant had lost its statutory rights to challenge Bill No.18/2021. Accordingly, the Defendant did not raise any merit in the defence, nor there is any triable issue or any other reason for this case to be tried. [31] Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the Defendant had failed to raise any triable issue or defence to defeat the Plaintiff’s claim for a summary judgment. (DR. SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judicial Commissioner of the High Court of Malaya NCVC 1 Kuala Lumpur Date: 11 JANUARY 2024 S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 COUNSELS For The Plaintiff Messrs. Joshua Sambanthan & Associates No. 3A-20, Block 3A, Leisure Commerce Square, No. 9, Jalan PJS 8/9, 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor For The Defendant Messrs. Goik, Ramesh & Loo Suite N-3-1, Block N, Plaza Damas, No.60, Jalan Sri Harta Mas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur. S/N 9QO02EFcxUSvmAU5eLAMTQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

J-02(C)(A)-2437-12/2021

PERAYU PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN CITY PLAZA RESPONDEN SIGMA ELEVATOR (M) SDN BHD

security for costs Arbitration Act 2005 arbitration arbitral determining insolvent challengeadjudication frozen audited account deficit claims costs breach repudiate contract interest clause upgraded lift rectify defects complaint repair works done set aside enforce stay executionappeal dismissed Judgment Debtor Summon Settling commenced civil suit damages dispute struck out prejudice mala fide bona fide countered argued merits legitimate financial woes interim ordersimpecuniosity exercise discretion appellate legally wrong factual matter irrelevant considerations warrant standing capability intervention exhaustive evidence material admitted proved prayed erroneous order failing allow proceedings application judgment settle paid causal effect temporary capability capacity inability refusal reasonable chance success

11/01/2024

YA Dato' Ahmad Zaidi Bin IbrahimKorumYA Datuk Abdul Karim Bin Abdul JalilYA Dato' Ahmad Zaidi Bin IbrahimYA Dato' Sri Mariana binti Haji Yahya

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=35351d07-786c-4dff-89b1-a6e5bcb448aa&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: J-02(C)(A)-2437-12/2021 ANTARA PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN CITY PLAZA …PERAYU DAN SIGMA ELEVATOR (M) SDN BHD …RESPONDEN [DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO.: JA-24C(ARB)-1-07/2021 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Surat Awad Bertarikh 22.12.2014 Antara Perbadanan Pengurusan City Plaza dan Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd Berkaitan Projek Dikenali Sebagai ‘Proposed Lift Modernisation for City Plaza at 21, Jalan Tebrau, 80300 Johor Bahru’ Dan Dalam Perkara Mengenai Prosiding Timbangtara Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM) No. ARB/36-779/2020 Antara Perbadanan Pengurusan City Plaza dan Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn Bhd Dan Dalam Perkara Aturan 5 Kaedah 3, Aturan 7, Aturan 28, Aturan 69 dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Dan 11/01/2024 08:57:19 J-02(C)(A)-2437-12/2021 Kand. 70 S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 11 Akta Timbang Tara 2005] Antara SIGMA ELEVATOR (M) SDN BHD …PLAINTIF DAN PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN CITY PLAZA …DEFENDAN CORAM ABDUL KARIM BIN ABDUL JALIL, JCA AHIMAD ZAIDI BIN IBRAHIM, JCA MARIANA BINTI YAHYA, JCA GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT Introduction: [1] The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were before the Johor Bahru High Court in Saman Pemula No.: JA-24C(ARB)-1-07/2021. [2] Vide Saman Pemula No.: JA-24C(ARB)-1-07/2021 abovesaid, the Plaintiff (Sigma Elevator (M) Sdn. Bhd.) had applied for Security for Costs in the sum of RM400,000-00 against the Defendant (Perbadanan Pengurusan City Plaza) pursuant to section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005). S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [3] On 28.11.2021, the learned High Court Judicial Commissioner (JC) allowed the Plaintiff’s said application with Costs and ordered the said security sum be paid to the Plaintiff’s solicitor as a stakeholder. The Findings and Rulings of The High Court Dated 28.11.2021: [4] Based on the Grounds of Judgment (GOJ) the learned JC ruled that there is reasonable doubt about the Defendant’s ability to pay costs if the Defendant is unsuccessful at the arbitration. His Lordship’s ruling/order is founded on the following findings: (i) that the Defendant is insolvent, as admitted by the Defendant, and that its account has been frozen. Its audited account for 2019 showed a deficit. (paragraphs 14 – 16 GOJ referred to). The learned JC referred amongst others, to the cases of Ling Khee Ming v Ling Shaw Kue @ Ling Chai Yues [2018] 1 LNS 1139 and Skrine & Co. v MBF Capital Bhd & Anor [1998] 3 MLJ 432; (ii) that it is undisputed that the Defendant failed to pay costs ordered/awarded earlier to the Plaintiff amounting to RM80,000-00 and no cogent reason was given by the Defendant for such failure (paragraphs 18 – 21 GOJ referred). The learned JC referred to amongst others, the case of Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn. Bhd. V Trane Malaysia Sales and Service Sdn. Bhd. [2017] 1 LNS 1243; and (iii) as to the amount for security, based on the fact that the arbitration claim is for RM5 million, the Adjudication Decision (AD) sum is RM1 million plus and previous costs of RM80,000-00 the learned JC was of the view it was fair and reasonable (paragraphs 23 GOJ referred to). S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [5] Dissatisfied with the aforementioned decision/order, Defendant appeals to the Court of Appeal. Hence, this Appeal before us. Our Decision/Order: [6] After having appraised the Appeal Records and considering the submissions by learned counsels for both sides, we unanimously found merits in the Defendant’s appeal. Hence, we accordingly allowed the Defendant’s Appeal herein with Costs of RM5,000-00, subject to the allocator. Accordingly, the order of the learned JC is thus set aside. [7] We allowed the Defendant’s appeal on the following grounds: Chronology of Events: [8] The relevant chronology of events leading to the Plaintiff filing the application (Saman Pemula No. JA-24C(ARB)-1-07/2021) is as follows: (i) vide Offer Letter dated 22.12.2014 the Defendant offered a contract titled “Proposed Lift Modernisation for City Plaza at 21, Jalan Tebrau, 80300 Johor Bahru” to the Plaintiff, to upgrade 11 lifts located in City Plaza in Johor Bahru (the Contract). The upgrading works cover: (a) 7 Tower Lifts (P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8 and P9); (b) 2 Car Park Lifts (P1 and P2); and (c) 2 Service Lifts (S10 and S11); (ii) On 09.01.2015, the Plaintiff accepted the aforesaid offer. Parties agreed to the terms in the Offer Letter and to follow the S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 PAM Contract (PAM Contract (without Quantity) 2006). The Contract was for approximately two (2) years, from 31.12.2014 until 11.11.2016. The Contract provided for an arbitration clause in the event of a dispute between the parties; (iii) Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties, culminating in the Defendant issuing a Letter dated 28.12.2016 to the Plaintiff, alleging that the Plaintiff had breached the Contract and had repudiated the same; (iv) The Defendant conceded that works for nine (9) of the eleven (11) lifts had been performed and handed over by the Plaintiff. The Defendant, however, averred that the works relating to the nine (9) lifts were faulty and not properly upgraded as per the terms of the Contract and that two (2) lifts have yet to be upgraded by the Plaintiff; (v) The Defendant alleged that as the Plaintiff failed to rectify/make good the defects and due to complaints lodged by the residence of City Plaza, it was forced to engage third party contractor, TMS Engineering Sdn Bhd (TMS), for the repair works and ended up paying RM1,015,427 to TMS; (vi) Regarding the works done, the Plaintiff claimed they were not paid accordingly by the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff commenced an adjudication claim against the Defendant under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA, 2012); S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (vii) On 22.1.2018, the Plaintiff’s claim was allowed by the Adjudicator, who ordered the Defendant to pay RM1,020,467- 42 as well as Costs and interests to the Plaintiff; (viii) Following the Adjudication Decision (AD), the Plaintiff applied to the High Court to enforce the said AD under section 28 CIPAA 2012. Almost at the same time, the Defendant applied to the High Court to set aside/to stay execution of the AD pursuant to sections 15 and 18 CIPAA 2012; (ix) Having heard the applications together, on 28.11.2018, the High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application and simultaneously dismissed the Defendant’s application; (x) The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court abovesaid. The appeal was subsequently dismissed; (xi) Ensuing from the abovesaid, the Plaintiff proceeded to enforce the AD by way of a Judgment Debtor Summon (JDS), resulting in the Defendant being ordered by the Court to pay RM30,000-00 monthly to the Plaintiff towards settling the AD sum; (xii) Following the dispute between the parties as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (v) above, the Defendant commenced a civil suit against the Plaintiff in the High Court for damages for breach of the Contract. However, the Plaintiff objected to the filing of the claim before the Court, arguing that the dispute should go to arbitration as agreed upon by the S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 parties under the Contract. Thus, the suit was struck out by the High Court accordingly; (xiii) Thereafter, on 16.12.2018, the Defendant initiated arbitration proceedings against the Plaintiff under the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005) in line with the arbitration clause in the Contract, claiming damages for breach of contract; (xiv) Whilst the arbitration was ongoing, the Plaintiff applied to the Arbitrator for security for costs against the Defendant. The Arbitrator instructed the Plaintiff to apply to the High Court instead; and (xv) Acting on the direction of the Arbitrator, the Plaintiff then filed Saman Pemula No.: JA-24C(ARB)-1-07/2021 for security for costs before the High Court. Saman Pemula No.: JA-24C(ARB)-1-07/2021: The Plaintiff’s grounds for applying: [9] The Plaintiff proffered three (3) main reasons for applying for security for costs, viz.: (i) that the Defendant had admitted to being insolvent; (ii) that the Defendant failed to pay the costs earlier ordered by the Adjudicator, the High Court and the Court of Appeal; and (iii) that the potentially high costs of the Arbitration would prejudice the Plaintiff. S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 The Defendant’s grounds for challenging/objecting: [10] The Defendant gave the following grounds: (i) that the Plaintiff’s application is mala fide; (ii) that there are merits in the Defendant’s arbitration claim and is legitimate and bona fide; (iii) that the Plaintiff is not prejudiced as it was paid RM30,000-00 monthly as per the JDS order; (iv) that the Defendant’s ailing financial state was due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the Contract; and (v) that the Plaintiff’s application is aimed at curtailing and derailing the Arbitration proceeding. The Law – Security for Costs: [11] The law on point relating to security for costs under section 11 Arbitration Act 2005 is trite and well settled, and that is, firstly, before or during an arbitral proceeding, the High Court may make interim orders/measures, one of which, is for a party to provide security for costs (section 11 (1)(e) AA 2005 referred to). [12] Secondly, the Court must consider the case/application in its entirety. The Defendant’s impecuniosity and financial standing alone are insufficient (the cases of Customer Loyalty Solutions Sdn Bhd v Advanced Information Marketing Berhad & Anor [2017] 1 LNA 1894; and Measat Broadcasting Network Systems Sdn Bhd v AV Asia Sdn Bhd [2014] 3 CLJ 915 amongst others referred to). S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [13] Thirdly, since an order for security for costs involved an exercise of discretion, it should not simply be disturbed at the appellate stage, save if it can be shown that the exercise of discretion is legally wrong (the cases of KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v Lukoil Uzbekistan Operating Company LLC [2020] 1 LNS 479; and Haidakota (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Thiam Chai & Another Appeal [2009] 1 CLJ 699 amongst others, referred to). Our Decision and Findings: [14] Based on the Defendant’s (Appellant’s) Memorandum of Appeal, the Defendant challenged the learned JC’s order/decision on two main heads/grounds. The first ground concerned the Defendant’s contention that the learned JC had failed to consider other relevant matters, especially the Defendant’s arbitration claim. According to counsel, the arbitration claims were made bona fide. The learned JC failed to consider the merits of the arbitration claims. [15] The second challenge pertains to the learned JC’s finding/ruling on the Defendant’s impecuniosity/financial capability to pay costs. Learned counsel submitted that the learned JC was in error and was plainly wrong in finding that Defendant could not pay the cost of the arbitral proceeding if it was unsuccessful in the arbitration. Ground (i) - The Failure to consider the Arbitration Claim etc... [16] ln our view, ground (i) is pivotal to the Defendant’s overall appeal. [17] To start with, based on the principle of law as stated in paragraph 13 above mentioned, since the order for security for costs herein involved S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 an exercise of discretion, it should not simply be disturbed at the appellate stage by this panel, save if it can be shown that the exercise of discretion is legally wrong. What makes an exercise of discretion legally wrong or otherwise is a factual matter. [18] The law is clear that taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to consider relevant considerations by the Court would also make the exercise of discretion legally wrong in law. The question is, what are the matters to be regarded as relevant considerations? Again, it is factual. [19] In the Court of Appeal case of Haidakota (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Thiam Chai & Another Appeal [supra], Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) said the following: “[2] …An order directing security for costs is a discretionary order. The general principle upon which this court acts in appeal against such orders is that it will not interfere unless it is demonstrated that the primary judge had taken into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations…”. (emphasis added). [20] Learned counsel for the Defendant claimed that the Defendant’s financial woes was the causal effect of the Plaintiff’s breach of the Contract on which the Defendant’s arbitration claims hinges on. Counsel further argued that the Defendant’s arbitration claim must be considered, whether the claim is bona fide and legitimate, with a reasonable chance of success. Learned counsel therefore argued that the matters relating to the Defendant’s arbitration claims are relevant considerations to be taken into account for security for costs. As the learned JC failed to take them into consideration, His Lordship was thus plainly wrong. As we see it, this formed the nuts and bolts of the Defendant’s appeal before us. S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [21] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent countered the Defendant’s aforesaid contention and instead submitted that the learned JC was correct and not plainly wrong. Counsel submitted that the arbitration claim is irrelevant in determining security for costs. [22] Learned counsel referred to the case of Customer Loyalty [supra] to argue that the merits of the arbitration claim are irrelevant consideration for security for cost. [23] However, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted in our case, it is not true that the learned JC only considered the Defendant’s financial position when deciding the Plaintiff’s application. According to counsel, the Court had also considered other matters, including the Plaintiff’s Garnishee Application and the Defendant's failure/refusal to pay costs ordered by the Court. [24] Counsel submitted that the other issues raised by the Defendant’s counsel, including the merits of the Defendant’s arbitration claim, are irrelevant and unnecessary in an application for security for costs as held by the Court in the case of Customer Loyalty [supra]. Counsel went further to submit that even if it is relevant, it has been considered by the learned JC. Our Decision For Ground (i): [25] It is noteworthy that, in response to the Defendant’s/Appellant’s submission on this issue, learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent in his Reply Submission (Enclosure 26), at paragraphs 24.1 and 24.2, conceded that the Court must consider the case in its entirety in an S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 application for security for costs and that the Defendant’s/Appellant’s financial position alone would not warrant security for costs. [26] Having appraised the Appeal Records, the cases referred to, and the submissions by both learned counsels, we are not persuaded by the submission by the Plaintiff’s counsel. Instead, we agreed with the Defendant’s counsel on the point as to the relevance of the Defendant’s arbitration claim to the application for security for costs. We are of the considered view that the Defendant’s arbitration claims and matters related to it, including the merits and the chance of success, are relevant matters which should be considered by the Court in a security for costs application under section 11 AA 2005. We are in concurrence with the views and decisions in the following cases: (i) Haidakota (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Thiam Chai & Another Appeal [supra] wherein Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) said the following: “[2] …An order directing security for costs is a discretionary order. The general principle upon which this court acts in appeal against such orders is that it will not interfere unless it is demonstrated that the primary judge had taken into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations…”. “…I do not agree with the contention of the defendant that the Plaintiff’s chances of being successful in a claim to be irrelevant consideration as far as an application for security for costs is concerned” (emphasis added). [27] As held in Haidakota abovesaid, we are of the view the learned JC failed to consider relevant considerations when imposing security for costs, viz., the Defendant’s claim. S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (ii) Mechanalysis Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v Appraisal Property Management Sdn Bhd [2016] 8 CLJ 81, wherein Mohd Nazlan Ghazali J held: “…the court has the discretion to order security by taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case in order to achieve a balance between ensuring that protection is afforded to a defendant and a legitimate claim by a plaintiff is not stifled”. (emphasis added). [28] In the circumstances of our case, we are of the view that the learned JC, in considering solely the Defendant’s financial status and thereafter ordering such a high sum as security, had stifled the bona fide claim of the Defendant, which was then pending before the arbitration. In our view, it is pertinent to note that learned counsel for the Plaintiff conceded that the Defendant’s arbitration claim is not mala fide nor made with bad intention (Respondent’s Reply Submission paragraph 41.2 – Enclosure 26 referred to). (iii) North Plaza Sdn Bhd v United Securities Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ 631 where it was held by Hishamuddin Yunus CJA as follows: “…it is a principle of law the respondent’s prospect of success is also relevant factor (amongst factors) in deciding as to whether or not security for costs ought to be ordered against the respondent (see Drumdurno Pty Ltd v Braham [1982] 7 ACLR 131; and KD Resources Sdn Bhd v Ng Boon Jieh & Son Realty Sdn Bhd [2002] 3 MLRH 382”. [29] In our case, since the learned JC did not even look into the matters pertaining to the arbitration claim, it is in our considered view that it is not wrong for this Court to conclude that the learned JC gave no consideration as to the Defendant’s prospect of success in the arbitration. S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [30] As for the case of Customer Loyalty [supra] which the learned counsel for the Plaintiff referred to argue that the merits of the arbitration claim are irrelevant consideration for security for costs, with respect we are unable to agree. As we see it, the Court in that case, quoted with approval the judgment by Arifin Zakaria J. in Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Dato’ Michael Chong [1995] 2 MLJ 404, *ho held as follows: “[47]…An application for security for costs is decidedly very much interlocutory in nature. Thus, any suggestion that this court should undertake a detailed investigation into the merits of the underlying writ action in order to determine the prospect of the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the disputed sum must therefore be rejected for being pre-mature and untenable”. [31] Hence, it is clear that the Court did not say the merits of the arbitration claim are irrelevant consideration. Instead, what was decided was that in an application for security for costs, the court should not embark on a detailed investigation into the merits. Merit is still relevant. [32] Based on the aforementioned authorities, we are in accord with learned counsel for the Defendant. In our considered view, the merits of the Defendant’s arbitration claim, whether bona fide and legitimate, are material and relevant matters to be considered by the Court when entertaining the security for costs application. [33] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the learned JC had taken all relevant matters/considerations. We are however not persuaded because the learned JC’s GOJ did not state anything concerning the Defendant’s arbitration claim. Nowhere in the said GOJ does the judgment speak about the Defendant’s arbitration claim. The whole of the said GOJ S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 only speaks about the Defendant’s financial standing and capability. No merits or the status of the Arbitration was touched upon. Therefore, to say that the learned JC had considered the matters relating to the Defendant’s arbitration claim would run contrary to the written records and purely speculative. [34] To be fair, the learned JC, in ordering security for costs against the Defendant, had referred to the case of Mechanalysis Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v Appraisal Property Management Sdn Bhd [supra] as can be drawn in paragraph 12 of the GOJ. Alas, apart from referring to the correct principle, it is apparent that His Lordship failed to consider all the circumstances of the case, which necessarily, in our considered view, includes considering the Defendant’s arbitration claim as to whether it is bona fide and legitimate with a reasonable chance of success or otherwise. [35] Based on the GOJ of the learned JC as at paragraph [12] aforementioned, it is apparent the learned JC only considered the defendant's financial capacity. No consideration was given to whether the arbitration claim by the Defendant was bona fide with merit or not. Thus, we are of the considered view that the learned JC was wrong in failing to do so, which entitled the intervention of this Court. We are guided in our view by the Federal Court case of Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of The Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1 where in paragraph 54 it was held: “[54] …Premised on Thomas v. Thomas (supra) and Henderson (supra) Lord Reed qualified that the “plainly wrong” test only comes into play in the absence of the following: S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 (a) material error of law; (b) critical factual finding which had no basis in evidence (c) demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant evidence; and (d) demonstrable failure to consider relevant evidence. In the presence of any of the above, the appellate court is entitled to set aside the judgment of the trial court without having to consider the “plainly wrong” test. Lord Reed reiterates that these 4 identifiable errors are however not exhaustive. It appears that the other examples which could be added to this non-exhaustive list, are as listed in Thomas v. Thomas (supra) namely: (a) There is misdirection by the judge; (b) There is no evidence to support a particular conclusion; (c) There is material inconsistencies or inaccuracies; (d) The trial Judge fails to appreciate the weight and bearing of circumstances admitted or proved.” (emphasis added). [36] As such, and in conclusion on this point, we find that the learned JC’s exercise of discretion to order security for costs on the Defendant herein is to be legally wrong for failing to consider the Defendant’s Arbitration claim. Conclusion: [37] Based on the aforesaid, in the circumstances of this case, we find that the learned JC was plainly wrong and was erroneous in ordering the Defendant to pay security for costs as prayed for by the Plaintiff, which warrant our appellate intervention. We would, therefore, allow the Defendant’s Appeal and set aside the High Court Order dated 28.11.2021. The arbitral proceeding is to proceed accordingly. S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Ground (ii) – Learned JC’s finding on the Defendant’s Impecuniosity: [38] ln allowing the Plaintiff’s application, the learned JC at paragraph 22 GOJ concluded as follows: “[22] …Being insolvent, accounts have been frozen, audited accounts experienced deficit and failure to pay the costs, I agreed with the Plaintiff that security for costs is reasonably justified to be imposed on the Defendant.’’. [39] Learned counsel submitted that the learned JC erroneously ruled that the Defendant was insolvent and would be unable to pay/settle costs for the arbitration in the event it is ordered to do so. Counsel claimed that the Defendant’s financial woes were only temporary and that the Defendant would be able to settle the judgment sum should it fail in its arbitration claim. In fact, according to counsel, the Defendant had paid the sum of RM1,615,280-00 to the Plaintiff for works done under the Contract. Counsel averred that the Defendant’s financial woes were a causal effect of the Plaintiff’s breach of the Contract, and it was on this that the arbitration claim was premised on. Counsel further submitted that the learned JC was also in error in finding that the Defendant’s failure to pay the costs as ordered by the Court for earlier related matters between the parties is relevant to the application for security for costs. [40] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the learned JC was perfectly correct in taking the Defendant’s financial capability and capacity, which was based on the Defendant’s inability/refusal to pay the costs as ordered earlier by the Court for the JDS and for the appeals matters before the appellate Courts. Counsel submitted that since the Defendant had admitted to being insolvent, the learned JC cannot be said to be in any error or was plainly wrong in His Lordship’s decision/order. S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [41] As mentioned earlier, we are of the view that Ground (i) is pivotal to the Defendant’s Appeal and would be determinative of the Defendant’s Appeal herein as a whole. As such, in our view, Ground (ii) is now academic because even if the learned JC is correct in respect of the Defendant’s impecuniosity and inability to pay costs for the arbitration, based on our finding and ruling that the learned JC was plainly wrong pertaining to Ground (i) aforesaid, it would not make any difference to our decision abovesaid. [42] Hence, we reiterate that the Defendant’s Appeal is hereby allowed with costs of RM5,000-00 subject to allocator. Dated: 30.12.2023 - t.t - AHMAD ZAIDI BIN IBRAHIM JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 For the Appellant (1) Ong Chee Yong (2) Jayananthini Tetuan C.Y. Ong & Co. Suite 8.05, City Plaza, Jalan Tebrau 80250 JOHOR BAHRU For the Respondent (1) Deepak Mahadevan (2) Faeza Suraya binti Roselan Tetuan Azmi Fadzly Maha & Sim A4-2-5, Solaris Dutamas 1 50480 KUALA LUMPUR Legislation: 1. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 2. Section 15 and 18 CIPAA 2012 Cases: 1. Ling Khee Ming v Ling Shaw Kue @ Ling Chai Yues [2018] 1 LNS 1139 2. Skrine & Co. v MBf Capital Bhd & Anor [1998] 3 MLJ 432. 3. Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn. Bhd. V Trane Malaysia Sales and Service Sdn. Bhd. [2017] 1 LNS 1243. 4. Customer Loyalty Solutions Sdn Bhd v Advanced Information Marketing Berhad & Anor [2017] 1 LNA 1894. 5. Measat Broadcasting Network Systems Sdn Bhd v AV Asia Sdn Bhd. [2014] CLJ 915. S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 6. KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v Lukoil Uzbekistan Operating Company LLC [2020] 1 LNS 479. 7. Haidakota (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Thiam Chai & Another Appeal [2009] 1 CLJ 699. 8. Mechanalysis Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) v Appraisal Property Management Sdn Bhd [2016] 8 CLJ 81. 9. North Plaza Sdn Bhd v United Securities Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 MLJ 631. 10. Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of The Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1. S/N Bx01NWx4/02JsablvLRIqg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CA-22C-1-08/2018

PLAINTIF EXCEL M&E SDN BHD DEFENDAN Mujur Sepakat Sdn Bhd

The Plaintiffs in this suit has filed Enclosure 1. This Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for a total sum of RM9,214,991.48 with interest at the rate of 5% per annum and together with cost amounting to RM150,000.00. The Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed. The claim is mainly based upon 4 Letter of Award and whether the Plaintiff is entitled of the balance lump sum payment under the 4 LOA as the work has been completed. This Court strictly believes that the Defendants’ version of claim did not challenge the Plaintiff’s claim in any manner. The Plaintiff has successfully proven their claim on the balance of probabilities that they are entitled for the sum paid under the lump sum contract.

11/01/2024

YA Dato' Haji Zainal Azman Bin Ab. Aziz

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=758a98d8-ca1d-4e5a-8588-712c20bfa561&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - AP CA-22C-1-08-2018 EXCEL M&E V MUJUR SEPAKAT 12.2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR CIVIL SUIT NO : CA-22C-1-08/2018 BETWEEN EXCEL M & E SDN BHD (Company No.:490050-A) …PLAINTIFF AND MUJUR SEPAKAT SDN BHD (Company No.:307932-T) …DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT INTRODUCTION 1. The Plaintiffs in this suit has filed Enclosure 1. This Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for a total sum of RM9,214,991.48 with interest at the rate of 5% per annum and together with cost amounting to RM150,000.00. The Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed. 11/01/2024 15:23:29 CA-22C-1-08/2018 Kand. 158 S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant who is the subcontractor to Zenith Aim Sdn Bhd (“Zenith Aim”) to carry out mechanical and electrical works in a mixed development known as Hotel Tower, Convention Hall and Office Tower on Lot 423, Sek 20 PN 5596, Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur (“the development”). 3. The appointment of Plaintiff was via 4 letters of Award dated 29.5.2009 and 9.9.2009 (the LOA’s) which comprise of fire protection LOA, Electrical LOA, air conditioning and mechanical ventilation (ACMV) LOA and lightning protection LOA. 4. The LOA’s are build-only lump sum contracts. The contract prices stipulated in the LOAs arrived on the basis of the works determined by the Defendants in 2009. 5. The Hotel Tower and the Convention Hall were granted the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (“CCC”) on 22.12.2010 and the Office Tower was granted its CCC in or around 13.12.2011. S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 6. Thus, this claim was filed by the Plaintiff mainly because the Plaintiff believes that having completed the works under the 4 LOA’s the Plaintiff is entitled to the whole of contract prices to be paid on lump sum basis. 7. Besides the lump sum payment based on the 4 LOA’s, the Plaintiff is also claiming for variations order for the LOA’s and also prolongations cost due to the delay. 8. The Defendant on the other end has filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff, where the Defendant believes that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the entire claim made simply because; 1) The Defendant had made full payment for the amount certified and due under all payment certificate issued for works done under the 4 LOA’s; 2) The Plaintiff is not entitled for payments for defective works that does not comply with the contract quality standards; 3) The Defendant has never instructed the Plaintiff to carry out any variation works under the LOA’s; S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 4) The Defendant has suffered losses, damages and cost due to Plaintiff’s Defaults and breaches of contract. MAIN ISSUES TO BE TRIED IS THE PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO THE BALANCE LUMP SUM PAYMENT UNDER THE 4 LOAS 9. A lump sum contract is a contract where the employer is liable to pay the contractor a fixed sum that has been agreed upon once all the work has been completed by the contractor. It is undisputed that the 4 LOA’s in this suit is a lump sum contract. 10. Thus, it is the duty of this court to decide whether the works under the 4 LOAs has been completed for the Plaintiff to be entitled of the balance lump sum payment under the 4 LOAs. 11. Mr. Yap who is the key witness for the Plaintiff has testified in court that the Plaintiff has completed the works under all 4 LOAs for the Hotel Tower and the Convention Hall by November 2010, a Bomba inspection was held on 10.12.2010 for the Hotel and Convention Hall and the CFO for the Hotel and Convention Hall was issued on 22.12.2010. S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 12. Furthermore, this evidence was also further corroborated by the Defendant’s own witness Mr. Palanisamy during the cross examination on 2.6.2023 where he agreed that the works were completed as at the date of the CFO. 13. The same has happened for the Office Tower where Mr. Yap has testified that the Plaintiff has completed the works under the LOAs by 23.5.2011 and subsequently two Bomba inspection were held on 23.5.2011 and 26.9.2011, with the fire certificate issued on 25.11.2011. The CFO for the Office Tower was also obtained on 13.12.2011. 14. The CFO certifies that the building is complete and safe for occupation with the complete infrastructure and complies with regulation of Local Authority. Thus, if the Plaintiff did not complete their work under the 4 LOAs it would be impossible for the CFO to be issued for the said buildings. 15. This court agrees with the Plaintiff that the satisfaction of the Bomba inspections and subsequently, the obtaining of the CFO S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 satisfied and discharged the Plaintiff’s obligations under the Agreement as set out in the clauses under the 4 LOAs. 16. This evidence has also been corroborated by the Defendant’s witness Mr. Palanisamy during the cross examinations on 15.6.2023. Where Mr. Palanisamy clearly agreed that there is no evidence or site memo issued saying that the Plaintiff failed to finish any work at the time the CFO was issued. Based on the available site memos, it was clear that the Plaintiff has completed their works by the time the CFO was issued. 17. This Court is more convinced by the testimonies given by Mr. Yap being the Plaintiff’s witness where his statements were more reliable and was supported by documentary evidences to proof the Plaintiff’s case. 18. Besides that, the Development has already commenced operations and have been in operation for more than a decade. Throughout those years, the Defendant have never put forward any assertion or claim that the Plaintiff has failed to complete the works. S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 19. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Plaintiff have completed the works under the 4 LOAs and is definitely entitled for the remaining sum of the unpaid amount under the lump sum contract. This is because even the CFO also has been issued for the respective places proving that the works are already complete and up to par. 20. The Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff has failed to complete the works under the 4 LOAs under the said completion date is purely baseless. Their claim for specific damages and delay for completion is irrelevant as this court is of the view that the Plaintiff has completed their work in a prompt manner. IS THERE VARIATION WORKS DONE BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER THE 4 LOAS AND IS THE PLAINTIFF ENTITLED FOR THE PAYMENTS OF THE VARIATION WORKS? 21. The Defendants in this suit stated that they did not instruct the Plaintiff to do any variation works under the 4 LOAs. However, the Defendant has failed to adduce to this court any relevant documents to support their defense. The Defendant has never adduced any alternative evidence on the completion and non- completion of the works to rebut the Plaintiff’s evidence. S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 22. The Plaintiff on the other hand submitted supportive documentary evidence to proof that variation works has definitely took place. 23. The variation works were confirmed to have been completed by Mr. Yap and have been corroborated by the Defendant’s own witness, Mr. Palanisamy who have confirmed that the works were indeed completed. 24. This Court is convinced via the evidence adduced in this court that the Defendant had clearly instructed these variation works to be carried out and that these variation works were completed by the time it was handed over. 25. Thus, the Plaintiff at all material time is entitled over the payments for the variation works that they have done. IS THE PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO THE PROLONGATION COST? 26. The prolongation cost that is claimed by the Plaintiff is valid and this Court is convinced that due to the hindrance caused by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was unable to start and complete their work as per the LOAs in the given time frame. S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 27. Thus, it has caused the Plaintiff to suffer extra prolongation cost to complete the works beyond the contractual completion dates. 28. The Defendant in this suit has enjoyed the benefit from the construction and completion of the works done by the Plaintiff as per the 4 LOAs. It is unfair to the Plaintiff if the Defendant refuses to pay for all the lump sum money that has been agreed upon and for the extra cost that has been bared by the Plaintiff. 29. Throughout the trial proceeding, the Plaintiff has time and time again adduced evidence to support their claim and the Plaintiff witness Mr. Yap’s testimony was more convincing compared to Mr. Palanisamy. Mr. Palanisamy has on several occasion admitted that the works have been completed. 30. This Court strictly believes that the Defendants’ version of claim did not challenge the Plaintiff’s claim in any manner. The Plaintiff has successfully proven their claim on the balance of probabilities that they are entitled for the sum paid under the lump sum contract. S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 31. It is absurd for the Defendant to state that Plaintiff is not entitled to the payments for defective works and/or works that does not comply with the contract quality standards, requirements and specifications. This is because, the Defendant has never once throughout the years being in operation has complained about any defects or has taken any legal actions against the Plaintiff for such defects if present. 32. This is because, the Defendant has never once throughout the years being in operation has complained about any defects or has taken any legal actions against the Plaintiff for such defects if present. 33. Furthermore, the relevant CFOs have been issued which clearly shows that the Plaintiff’s work is up to par with the standard requirements that is needed for operations of the buildings. CONCLUSION 34. Thus, this Court has allowed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for a total sum of RM RM9,214,991.48 with interest at S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 the rate of 5% per annum and together with cost amounting to RM150,000.00. The Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed. -signed- ZAINAL AZMAN BIN AB AZIZ JUDGE HIGH COURT MALAYA OF KUANTAN PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR DATED : 15 DECEMBER 2023 Plaintiff Solicitors : Mr. Chong Boon Leong together with Mr. Abd Azim Bin Abd Razak. Tetuan Rahmat Lim & Partners Suite 33.01, The Gardens Noth Tower Mid Valley City, Lingkaran Syed Putra 59200 Kuala Lumpur Ref. : 8018002022/BLCHONG Email : enquiries@rahmatlim.com S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Defendant Solicitor : Ms. Khor Xiou Shan together with Ms. Kee Shu Min. Tetuan AmerBON D3-5-1 Solaris Dutamas No.1 Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur Ref. : 2023000832 VKXS/KSM/SSA/nj Email : court@amerbon.com S/N 2JiKdR3KWk6FiHEsILlYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

22A-563-2011

PLAINTIF BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD DEFENDAN 1. ) PERTAMA PERDAGANGAN SDN. BHD. 2. ) IR JAMES LOH TIENG KOH @ LOH TIENG KANG 3. ) LOH TIENG HOCK 4. ) ISMAIL BIN IDRIS

Enclosure 75 was the Plaintiff’s appeal to a Judge in Chambers against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) in refusing to grant leave to the Plaintiff to issue a writ of execution to enforce a judgment entered against the Defendants more than six years since the date of the judgment. The court has allowed the Appeal on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s 2nd application for leave to issue a writ of execution filed on 22.8.2022, was well within a reasonable period. The delay, if any, had been sufficiently explained by the Plaintiff pursuant to the requirement under O. 46 r. 3(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012.

11/01/2024

YA Dato' Mohd Radzi bin Harun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=82de2281-5f61-4982-b276-ecf2f808fcfd&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ 22A-563-2011 KM75 1.2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO. 22A-563-2011 BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD ...PLAINTIFF AND 1. PERTAMA PERDAGANGAN SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. : 34408-H) 2. IR JAMES LOH TIENG KOH @ LOH TIENG KANG (I/C NO. : 570618-02-5029) 3. LOH TIENG HOCK (I/C NO. : 580709-02-5103) 4. ISMAIL BIN IDRIS ...DEFENDANTS (I/C NO. : 520316-02-5503) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] Enclosure 75 was the Plaintiff’s appeal to a Judge in Chambers against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) in refusing to grant leave to the Plaintiff to issue a writ of execution to enforce 11/01/2024 10:58:51 22A-563-2011 Kand. 103 S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 a judgment entered against the Defendants more than six years since the date of the judgment. I had decided to allow the Plaintiff’s appeal. The Defendants now appealed against that decision. BACKGROUND [2] Having perused the affidavits, I found the following facts: 2.1 In 2004, the 1st Defendant (D1) obtained a loan of RM15 million from the Plaintiff. The 2nd - 4th Defendants (D2 - D4) stood as guarantors. D1 defaulted the loan. 2.2 Consequent to the default, parties entered into a negotiation which culminated in a restructured loan of RM19 million in 2008, in addition to the outstanding balance amount from the original 2004 loan amounting to RM755,673.62. The Defendants defaulted again to service the outstanding amount of the original 2004 loan and the restructured loan. 2.3 The Plaintiff filed this Suit (Suit 563) to claim the amount of RM755,673.62, being the outstanding sum on the 2004 loan. This amount was subsequently reduced to RM753,58,53. S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 2.4 On 8.8.2011 the Plaintiff obtained a Judgment in Default (JID) against the said sum. 2.5 The Plaintiff filed a separate Suit No. 22A-566-2011 (Suit 566) against the Defendants for the outstanding sum of RM19,846,041.42 for the restructured loan. 2.6 On 15.3.2012 parties entered into a Consent Judgment for Suit 566 with conditions, among others, for the outstanding amount to be paid by the Defendants within 1 year from the said date. The Defendants failed to fulfill the said condition. 2.7 Following the JID and Defendants' failure to comply with the condition of the Consent Judgment, the Plaintiff commenced the following actions: (i) Foreclosure Proceeding (a) On 6.10.2013 the Plaintiff filed an OS for an Order for Sale of the Charged Land; (b) Following that, between December 2013 - May 2014 the Plaintiff and the Defendants negotiated; S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (c) Upon the negotiations, the Plaintiff set out its terms of settlement vide its letter to D1 dated 18.4.2014, which was agreed upon by D1 vide its letter dated 25.4.2014; (d) On 28.5.2014 a Consent Order was recorded on the Foreclosure, which was subsequently amended on 14.9.2015; (e) Pursuant to that Consent Order, D1 and a third party, Visi Sempena Sdn Bhd, was to enter into a private treaty for the sale of the Charged Land at an agreed price of RM20,555,943.62 or lower, as agreed between the Plaintiff and D1; (f) The Plaintiff discovered that D1 and Visi Sempena instead had entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) on the Charged Land at a price of RM1.00, without the Plaintiff’s prior knowledge; (g) Having been alerted that the Plaintiff will proceed to reactivate the Foreclosure of the Charged Land, without informing the Plaintiff, D1 and Visi Sempena entered into a Supplementary SPA on the Charged Land dated 27.11.2014 to vary the sale price of land from RM1.00 to RM20,555,943.62; S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (h) On 13.11.2014 the Plaintiff proceeded to re-commence the Foreclosure by filing an application to obtain directions to proceed with auction of the charged land, which was dismissed by the Registrar on 20.10.2015; (i) The Plaintiff did not succeed in all its appeals against that dismissal, with the Federal Court on 16.3.2017 dismissing the Plaintiff’s leave application to appeal after making a finding that D1 had acted in accordance with the Amended Foreclosure Order; (j) On 26.5.2020, the Plaintiff filed a separate action against the Defendants and Visi Sempena claiming fraud in their initial and Supplementary SPA over the Charged Land (Foreclosure Civil Suit); (k) The Defendant and Visi Sempena applied to strike out the Foreclosure Civil Suit which was dismissed by the High Court on 3.5.2021. Their appeal are still pending before the Court of Appeal. (ii) Bankruptcy (a) To execute the JID, the Plaintiff filed Bankruptcy Notices (BN) against D2 – D4 at the Alor Setar High Court; S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (b) Vide order dated 29.2.2016 the learned SAR allowed the BN to be served on D2 – D4 vide substituted service; (c) Vide letter dated 11.4.2016 D1 proposed another settlement, which was rejected by the Plaintiff vide its letter dated 26.4.2016; (d) D2 – D4’s applications to set aside the BN were dismissed by the SAR; (e) On 12.7.2017 the High Court allowed D2 – D4’s appeal against the SAR's dismissal and set aside the BN because the judgment sum stated in the BN differs from the sum stated in the JID obtained in Suit 563; (f) Following that, on 3.8.2017 the Plaintiff withdrew its Creditors Petition against D2 – D4 with liberty to file afresh. (iii) Settlement negotiations (a) While the above proceedings were taking place, the Plaintiff and the Defendants continued to partake in numerous sessions of negotiations to settle the claimed and outstanding sum; S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (b) In actual fact settlement negotiations between the Plaintiff and the Defendants had continuously taken place since 2007 until as recent as 2022. (iv) Writ of Execution (a) Consequent to the developments as set out in the preceding paragraphs, and as the date to enforce the JID had lapsed on 8.8.2017, on 5.10.2018 the Plaintiff filed an application for leave to issue a writ of execution to enforce the JID. (b) On 26.12.2018 the leave application was dismissed by the learned SAR. On 22.4.2019 the High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal against that dismissal and granted leave for the Plaintiff to execute the JID. On 22.1.2020 the Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' appeal against the High Court's decision. (v) Winding Up proceeding (a) On 11.9.2019, following the High Court's decision on 22.4.2019 granting the Plaintiff leave to execute the JID and CJ, the Plaintiff issued two Statutory Notices S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 pursuant to s. 465 of the Companies Act to wound up D1. (vi) Fortuna Injunction (a) On 7.10.2019 D1 filed for Fortuna Injunction to restrain the Plaintiff from presenting the winding up petition due to its pending appeal against the decision of the High Court. On 14.10.2019 the High Court granted an Interim Fortuna Injunction. (b) On 21.10.2019 the Plaintiff filed application to set aside the Interim Fortuna Injunction. After the inter partes hearing, on 13.5.2020 the High Court granted the Fortuna Injunction and dismissed the Plaintiff's setting aside application. On 14.10.2021 the Court of Appeal allowed the Plaintiff's appeal against the Fortuna Injunction. [3] What could be distilled from the facts above are that although the Plaintiff breached the 6-year period to execute the JID, it had not slept on its rights. The Plaintiff was not a litigant who is successful but inactive. On the contrary the actions as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs demonstrated that the Plaintiff had continuously taken measures to file the S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 relevant and correct applications to execute the JID, albeit its agreement to stall them due to the Defendants’ requests. On its latest action to execute the JID, the Plaintiff fought all the way to the Court of Appeal and successfully obtained leave to execute the JID pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s decision on 22.1.2020. But despite the leave, the Plaintiff cannot continue to execute the JID as its hands were tied for the period 7.10.2019 - 14.10.2021 when the Fortuna Injunction was in effect. Immediately after that, the Defendants continuously attempted to seek settlement during the period of November 2021 - February 2022, which were subsequently rejected by the Plaintiff. Six months after that, on 22.8.2022, the Plaintiff filed its 2nd application for leave to execute the JID. This application was dismissed by the learned SAR on 3.2.2023. Hence the current appeal before me now. DECISION [4] At the hearing of the Plaintiff's application, I had informed both counsels that as the affidavit evidence and the written submissions before me were sufficient to enable me to decide on the application, requests by counsels to file further submissions were denied. S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [5] I must emphasize that this is actually the 2nd round of leave application by the Plaintiff for the issuance of a writ to execute a lapsed order. [6] The law governing the Plaintiff’s application for leave to issue the writ to execute a lapsed order is trite. O. 46 r. 3(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides that the Plaintiff shall state the reasons of its delay to enforce the JID within the 6 years’ time period: See Affin Bank Bhd v. Wan Abdul Rahman [2003] 1 CLJ 826; [2003] 2 MLJ 509. [7] As a first step, what this Court needed to do is to determine whether or not the Plaintiff had complied with the procedural requisites as set out in O. 46 r. 2(1), 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) of the Rules. The Plaintiff’s application shall be by way of a notice of application in Form 88 supported by an affidavit- (i) identifying the JID it had obtained; (ii) stating the amount originally due under the JID and the amount due at the date of this application; and (iii) setting out the reasons for the Plaintiff’s delay in enforcing the JID. S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [8] Non-compliance with the above requirements could lead to the Plaintiff’s application being dismissed in limine, unless the Plaintiff can show to the satisfaction of the Court that such non-compliance has not caused any miscarriage of justice nor any occasion of prejudice to the Defendants that cannot be cured by Order 1A and Order 2 : Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad v Tampak Gemerlap & Ors [2019] MLJU 1374. [9] I am satisfied that the Plaintiff had used the correct form of application, had properly identified the JID it had obtained on 8.8.2011, and the amount originally due under the JID and the amount due at the date of this application had also been clearly spelt out in the Plaintiff’s supporting affidavits. [10] Having passed the first step, the remaining issue – which is the main issue – that needed to be determined by this Court is whether the Plaintiff had sufficiently explained its delay in filing the leave application and its delay in enforcing the JID. [11] It is pertinent for me to regurgitate the factual matrix of the case leading to this Court allowing the Plaintiff’s appeal: S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (a) as the impugned JID was granted on 8.8.2011, the 6 years’ time period for the Plaintiff to enforce the JID lapsed on 8.8.2017; (b) the 1st time the Plaintiff filed for leave to execute the JID was vide its application on 5.10.2018, which was successfully obtained by the Plaintiff on 22.1.2020 following the Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the High Court’s issuance of the leave; (c) the Defendants successfully obtained a Fortuna Injunction against the Plaintiff which was operative for the period 7.10.2019 - 14.10.2021. That injunction effectively halted and barred the Plaintiff to commence any enforcement actions against the Defendants. This bar was lifted on 14.10.2021 when the Court of Appeal allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal against the issuance of the said injunction; (d) by the time the Fortuna Injunction was lifted, the leave to execute the JID which was granted pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeal on 22.1.2020 had already lapsed on 22.1.2021; and (e) the Plaintiff filed an application for leave to execute for the 2nd time on 22.8.2022 in Enclosure 75. [12] Apart from the prevailing circumstances and facts that led to the filing of Enclosure 75 as set out above, this Court also took Judicial Notice that between the period of March 2020 - November 2021, Malaysia was S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 under various movement control orders to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, and in response to the rising numbers of Covid-19 cases in Malaysia, His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had declared an Emergency for the period 12.01.2021 - 01.08.2021. [13] The Defendants made a continuous attempt to seek settlement during the period of November 2021 - February 2022, which were subsequently rejected by the Plaintiff. Whilst all these were taking place, the writ of execution issued pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s decision on 22.1.2020 had expired on 22.1.2021. [14] With that backdrop, I made a finding that the Plaintiff’s 2nd application for leave to issue a writ of execution filed on 22.8.2022, was well within a reasonable period. The delay, if any, had been sufficiently explained by the Plaintiff. [15] It is trite law that it is the Plaintiff’s obligation to set out sufficient reasons for its delay in enforcing the JID and not merely setting out chronology of events. [16] The learned SAR failed to appreciate all the above facts. He failed to consider that the Plaintiff’s affidavits had extensively set out very S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 reasonable grounds and reasons for the time it had taken to execute the JID. Those were not merely statement on chronology of events. [17] The SAR felled into error for his failure to take into account all the events that had taken place since the Plaintiff commenced its action in October 2013 to execute the JID until the few months in 2022 before the Plaintiff filed the 2nd leave application to execute the JID. Had the SAR been diligent to peruse those events that actively took place during the span of that 9 years, he would not have dismissed the leave application by the Plaintiff. [18] The SAR’s brief reasonings stated that he was satisfied that the Plaintiff had raised sufficient and cogent reasons to support its application. However, relying on Pacific Sanctuary Holdings Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Ideal Prestige Sdn Bhd) v Masaland Construction Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 MLJ 692, the learned SAR concluded that he disregarded those cogent reasons upon his finding that the existence of the letters dated 18.4.2014 and 25.4.2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants formed a Settlement Agreement between them. He made a finding that as there was a Settlement Agreement between the parties, any dispute thereon constituted a new cause of action surrounding the Settlement Agreement which in effect has put Suits 563 and 566 to an end. The SAR then S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 decided that the Plaintiff’s remedy was to file a fresh action to enforce the said Settlement Agreement and not to execute the JID and the CJ, which the SAR regarded as “otiose by the Settlement Agreement”. [19] The SAR’s reference to Pacific Sanctuary was correct. But his application of the principle laid down in that case that led him to arrive at the conclusion that the 2014 letters formed a Settlement Agreement that put Suits 563 and 566 to an end was clearly a misdirection. [20] I had touched on these two letters in the earlier paragraph (refer paragraph 2.7 (i)(c)). In gist, the Plaintiff was in the midst of foreclosing the Defendants’ land charged for the loans. Upon negotiations, the Plaintiff set out its terms not to proceed with foreclosure vide its letter to D1 dated 18.4.2014, which was agreed upon by D1 vide its letter dated 25.4.2014. This culminated in a Consent Order entered by both parties on 28.5.2014, which was subsequently amended on 14.9.2015. The Plaintiff found the Defendants to have failed to fulfill the terms of the Consent Order and thus decided to re-commence the foreclosure of the charged land. This attempt by the Plaintiff was unsuccessful when the Federal Court ruled that the Defendants had actually fulfilled the terms of the Consent Order. In actual fact, the effect of the letters dated 18.4.2014 and 25.4.2014 was overtaken by the Consent Order dated 28.5.2014. S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [21] As explained in the paragraphs earlier (refer paragraphs 2 (i), (j) and (k)), the Plaintiff had filed a separate action against the Defendants and Visi Sempena on their SPA over the Charged Land. The suit is still pending. Thus, the SAR’s suggestion for the Plaintiff to commence a separate action against the Defendants on this issue had in actual fact been initiated by the Plaintiff some 3 years earlier. [22] I am satisfied that here is clearly not a case of a successful but inactive litigant as explained succinctly by Justice Suriyadi Halim in MBT (M) Sdn Bhd v. Syarikat Perniagaan Mesra Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 LNS 25; [2004] 1 MLJ 676. The recurring flaws of the Plaintiff, if any, were its unbelievably soft, puny and accommodating stance towards a defaulting borrower, all of which are irrelevant for purposes of the leave application. [23] Enclosure 75 was therefore allowed with costs. Dated : 03 January 2024 -signed- (MOHD RADZI BIN HARUN) Judge High Court of Malaya S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 PARTIES: Solicitors for the Plaintiff: Abdul Rashid Ismail together with Azreen Ahmad Rastom and Nur Nadia Ahmad Jaidi Messrs. Rashid Zulkifli D2-5-5, Blok D, Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur Ref : RZ/100/2846/16 Email : info@rashidzulkifli.com Solicitors for the Defendants: Wan Guan Hui together with Tsu Jean Yinn Messrs. Caitlen Nicholas Cheoh & Partners A-3-15, Dataran Cascades No. 13A Jalan PJU5/1, Kota Damansara 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan Ref : 361/22/DJ/LIT/PPSB(563) Email : admin@cnclegal.my S/N gSLegmFfgkmyduzyAj8/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22IP-26-04/2021

PLAINTIF 1. ) Sushi Kitchen Group Sdn Bhd 2. ) Tan Yee Chin DEFENDAN Goh Hooi Cheen

Application to set aside order for leave to apply for committal - The alleged breach of the Consent Judgment and the grounds for the Defendant’s Application - application allowed.

11/01/2024

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=eee4ef27-9a20-4c20-a79f-8ee0057c9441&Inline=true

11/01/2024 08:40:47 WA-22IP-26-04/2021 Kand. 99 S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N J/k7iCaIEynn47gBXyUQQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—22IP—26—Dd/2021 Kand. 99 11/01/2014 new-av IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMFUR CIVIL SUIT NO WA«22lP zgflgzt BETWEEN 1. SUSHI KITCHEN GROIIF sou am) 2. TAN VEE cum PLAINTIFFS AND GOD! noon CHEEN (TRADING As HOPE GOH ENTERPRISE) DEFENDANT JUDGMENT [APPLICATION to SET ASIDE annex ran LEAVE 10 AFPLV son coImrrrALI Inxmducnon I Juslnveva yeerago now‘ on 11 November 2022‘ aftsrasuocessfm med-anon, me parlres recorded a Fenghakrman Persehquan (“Consent Judgment‘) In IhIs man for aHeged Infnngemenl by me Delendam ol the Plamhfis In|e||ecIua\ pmpeny rigms 2 For many years beIore mat. the 2"“ Plamlxfl and me Defendant had been close menus and colleagues In me same resoauram. me 1*‘ Plaintiff. Ihal me 2"“ Plenum had lounded Dlspules and durierences between menu that probably arose be4ore but csnamly afier me Defendant left me Plammrs reslaulam arm set up my awn I-... I M n IN ./MIcaIEynn47yEXyUm2 -we Sum ...m.. WW be used M mm me nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm restaurant in Peciarig had iracturea and caused deep fissures to their irieridship. this action exaoerbalsd mat dime. The hope was that the Consent Judgmeritwaiitd trait that dnwrvward slide aria be the foundation ov a mice, recon on and iorgiveness, and perhaps a revival or their eariier arriily. 3 EU‘ I| was not (0 DB. Thal hope nmved to be shorbltved when the Plairiltfis filed an expafleappltcaltcrt on 23 March 2023 uiiueroia-r 52 lulu 2 or iii. Rttlu of coiin. am (“RuIss‘] tor ieave Ia make an application for an order 91 eemmiiiei against the neieriaarii «er her iiiegea breach ei the Consent Judgment A on 27 July 2023. ari amer was made giving the Ftaintifis that ieave (‘Leave Ordev“) aria they med the appticeiiori tor committal ori 9 August 2023 (“Comrrttllal Application“) Apart irom chaitengirig the cemmitiai Application. to strike at the heart oi rt the Delendanl is applying to set aside the Leave Order t“t>eieri¢arii'e Appticatinh“) It the Deieridarivs Appiicaiiori is attowed, it writ sueH the and oi the currimittat Appticaiion This Judgment ii. on that Deienaarire Appticatroh. Ylw aqua hmich of an coiiurii Judgmoul iirid the grounds tor the nut-ridnrit's Application 5 The cemmitvat Auptieaiieri is premised on the Deteridarirs atteged breach or rust nrie term at the Curiserit Judgment‘ that required the Deieriaarino put up a particular signage in Mr restaurant in Periang (‘ ‘ age Term‘) Thai signage Term reads rnuiziu iri Mk1iC:IEyrm47vEXyUGG «me Smut n-vthnrwm i. used m vaiw has nrwirrafily MIN: dnunvtnril vu aFit.tNG WM! 28 Form 53 olADDsm1lx A pruvmes lor three types of penal nollce‘ use and appllcatlon dependent on the relevant seenana ll ls the hrsr. (ah, whlch ls relevant here. It ts ln lhe iatlawlng terms -ln ma case a/2/tldgment ornvdcnsfllllrlnga pwsoll orbody oorpnvale to via an ac! wnmn a sosclfisd Ilme— -n W the wirlllrl warned (at ; neglect to my Ihls ltldamsnl (DI ovderl by Ill: hm. lmrulrl lmlllod, you mu be male Ia Dvficsnafuxsaltlon rm ma pmpola L7Vz:L7n-ups!/mg you In may m. same ' 29 The consent Judgment was not endorsed with any Penal Nphoa. The Delendanl lherelare cantends that, as the Plalnlms have larled to comply altogether wlth Order 45 rule 714). when ls also an essentlal Dlerequlslte to oornmencrng ocmml||a4 pmceedlngs agalnsl her, the Leave order should he set aslae 30. ln tnelr wmten Submlsslorls. me Flalnhlts argue lhar, just lrke sampe of the Consent Judgment and tor the same reasons that I have new surnrnanxed In paragraph 16 nflhls Judgment thls own should also dispense wrlh the need it)! the consent Judgment to as endorsed wllh a penal notloe For that. they rely on ma lpllawrrrg cases: (ll Saraswalhy Kahdaaami v Daxuk saravarran Muruuan & Arm! Appeal [2022] 2 CLJ 202‘ tnl Dwan Parrriapun Molayu Malaysia Negari John! V M-ntnri Bosar Johor & On [1015] 7 MLJ1: p... 11 ul :4 rn Mk7lC:lEyrm47yEXyUGG -we s.h.l n-vlhnrwlll r. as... m mm r.. pflnlnallly mm. mm. VII aFluNG v-mxl [nil Plumh I-munrizl systums Sdn and v N & c Ruourcn sun Bhd & or: [2013] w MLJ 537‘ and 31 On «ms wssue 1 find m lavauroflhe Defendan|avev |he P\a' «ms, {or seveml reasons 32. lly, whi\e rules 7(6) and 7(7) of Order A5 of one Rules exwess\y prams lor sllualmns m wmcn servme of the order or mdgmenn may be duspensed wnn Vn preludelu ucmmmal proceedmgs, there are no corresponding xzmvwslons to dispense wun |he penal nauoe requmsn by Order 45 rule 7(4) 01 |he Hum. 33 ssmndxy, m Loh Eng Luong & Anorv Lo Mun Sun I sans sun End a. Anor [2003] 4 mm 254, ms Court or Appeal he\d mat lhe penal nouce was mandalcryand ms absence done was «scan to lha oommmal pmceedmgs M pages 2377 and 2907 or Ihe Judgmenh Augustine Pam JCA sam. 7: 75 we as mnllndad by luamvd wanna! Rx me apps:/ems, that a fauure to mdorse me ovder of man‘ mm a pmr nolrcv rs rarer In an any/uzalrcm for wmmma! ' :1 rs Ihzralam c/sav ma: whom an otosr of man m dc an an must specrly Ina (mm wflhm Much In .4 Is to as done mm mm am. must be xpumfild rm mm such csus my mom can bu rrvdnrssmonrwmv the mm name As he rndorsvmvnl MM me pm: Home .x a pnsreqmsdelo me makmga/a comvnmslovdovwmcll mvolvcsmo/rberty aim: subpct 7: rs pamrm/ar/y rmpoflanl (ha! me relevant rules are duly mmpbed wvlh ~ Pigellalll sm mmc: yrmayaxyunn mm. smm ...m.mm s. .7... w my 7... mm-y mm: dun-mm 7.. mum pm 34. Tmrdly, m none 0! the three cases Ihal me Plairmas re\y orr dud the Court huld that lhe endorsement or me pena\ name on an order or rudgemem requrnng an act to be done can be drsperrsed wmr 35. Saraswsmy Kandasami mvolved |he commencement or mmruma4 umoaedings before the order had been sealed and served on the Deierrdam, and dud not mvowe me issue at norvendorsemenl or a penal nalrce on me order 35 m Dewan Permagaan Ms/syu Malaysia Negen Johol, Nazlan .11: [rmw JCA) rererred |o Allporl Alma Jamls v Wong 5000 un [1 9991 1 ML! 335 and said mar ‘ms defect/I1 norcorrrpryrrrg wrm the indorsemsn! ofs penal notice was ruled nol /may so rang as [he dererrdarn had knowledge afthe order rrr queslrcn 'Hcwever, Aupon Alfred Jams: mvnlved nnrmamprianoe wrm an ax part: order man was served Delsonafly on the resporrdsnr rssursrnmg mm rrum drsposrng of me pmceeds 01 sale 0! mar ma|nmnnia| pmpeny The nature 0! [he unier was Io abshnn from new an acl. and um |n du an act In ms Judgment, Chan Hock ‘fin JC drew a d Iincuun ’ cliorv between a proruhimry miuncliorn and a ‘ uncnorr He said ‘The mm powers m pamsn any perm. for cvvrf mmunlflavl nu.-rs» mmrna/ rr. nature Wham more rs Dvesmbed am/limccdural my to m: nrsrase gr Ihallunsdrclran, mat rule would bar scmpmuusly aosevved am smcrry complied w/in From r 714/am:I(A)aHhe Rsc mod above, A rs dsar mar Ina arsrrrrmur between a Dmmmlory lmuncluwv and . mandatory rmunclrun rm In In: rm mu anlarcomonl Ma pmhmrlovy Irwrmron may be all-or-:1 awn though wmr xtrvten ollha am has nu! Men mass prnvrded mat Inn p-rson agamsl whom live vagenulu sm mu yrrmsxruau “Nana ssrm nnnhnrwm .. med w my r... mrr.u-y mm: dun-mm vu muNG vmm wuunclrun u made has mam» om F0! a mandatory Anlwvcvmn Pfirmnsr service must be eflecled before ervluwermlvt may as taken H10 not mmk anymmg move should be mad me I ma; u m In no way On mtsrpvsled m excuse me Mn-wmpmnce 0/ ms raquwsmevu! arm: maommm are panel mm The ranonars my the anlnmsnmrrl oi - pmmbnovy uuuncbon mmnsmmng ma! ms outer has not been served 1: war n r: hasmal/y m prwema pally wno knew or the war mad: agsrnsl mm In as! mmrzry Imtbelore me nrdzns suwdon mm On ms omerhand, Ina nslronalo M a penal mm m to znsmu ma! me puson arms! wlvam III: arvu rs mm my apomaales me caruequervnzs 0! Any om-n>omD/mm.-I 7*»: pa-nr ma not M59 and was not oonudtnd In unnoa Tollphone Ca (":54 25 an n 779 /n my Opinion, the ormsscon In mflolsa me penar mace on the ante! s-ma an M: msponovnl /5 Rabi ' 37 That same dusunclm was made by Kamalanaman Ramam .10 m syarikal Ponmuhan Pegawzl Kerajaan sdn Bhd v srl Komakmur (No. 2} [1 ma] 5 MLI 756. He saxd: ‘Pursuant m o as r 7(3;4n), an order reqmnng a body mryalsle :9 no m an shafl name enlamecl un/ass the mpynu been so served perm Ina uxplralron ulme I/mo wflhm mm the body wasruquwodlo do m m Sub-mil m sly: Iron: man maxi be an mdovalrmnl on m. may of an amlrsurvod undvr (N: me, that n a mm in Form 57 rnlwmmg mo person on wimm lha may rs wrwd as and r: reamred by mu «:2; mg: n the body mrpovals negreus tn obey me ovdsr wrlhm the Irma sa suecmod or me omens to abslam lmm domg an act mamlhs body mwuvsle drsobeys the (M191 he rs nan/e m pmcess al exccubwv la compel the body :9 my a ms. nu mandatory rsqmrsmsnls a band! orwmcn wmmmnr nny uapuamn m comm, rmpount Bag: :4 .v 1.4 sm m<7£aIEyrm47na><yunG «mm. sm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pm Pursuantlo 5110415} ma mpy nuns omemqma n be sewed under Wsmle muslbe sarvedon me Deuanrealmedmda mum Hamzvev. pulsuanl In sub-I (A) move me pelson to be served mm me ardens ruquwld In mean «on domg an an, nu ma mm. ssmnpmona/Iy mm an. was! no! ma than be a nanarnulrnv maarssd on me am Dmvldud ma wufl rs unsm that he has nalrxx at um my time! by betngpmsunl mn maonivlwas meats orby bamgmtrfivduflhc um arms M121, Mvsmavby Pvlnplrons‘ telegram orothawua Thar: n 5 clear drsancban between .5 bodyctrpomll min mdtwdual havmg Lo do flflll£1,£lIPd3DSB!nlrIfl mam dang an set In we cut won mu, mo dslsndant was rcqulwd 1: saeeem-.-ny woman the mnnm mm/n as day! n: mnm en. umnm Ctumr. rm mnnanm rlmmvrvlant Mme needlo mdarau manunmvu sancnon m m. umorhns lo be mnlp/rev mm Tm reason n obwau: «u nunyls rvquwvd to 4142 an act, he has :9 exert enevgy and mug and emm to oomplr mm the mm Tn: realw ulpunmve sanmns bemy Wuwsad wm no aonnuovr ms mamana m wnmedum amen and n rs wnlv tms In mmd that me mdzwumsrll oipumlrvo sancnon beuomu n mundlroly Inqwnment n .. mmnnmen: mm In: roqmunmvl Var . panll nwcn wm nmy lpp(y when Im man.-nz ar ardsran rm/ch the mmmmnl pmcnpdrngs an rnunma. Is a posvrfve nvdsr .n n». um ma! Itrvqmvss a psrsorv In do aome an‘ on me me! hand, where the my .5 pvolubltory, that IS whale we onset mm a nehndam rm! to 00 an ad, the absence aflhe panel H01/DH!!! me (Mien: no! law so )ong as me now! 1: satisfied that the party reslrmmd has none. as P/sslach Indusmsl Systems Involved me Conn dispensmg mm nersanal sarwce alme order on which eamminal pmcaadmgs warn uummanced as me aetenaann had none: ol the larms ol ms order. II am not invnwe maven g mm a panel name. up xs of 2: sm mac: yrm47nEXyUGG «wn. smm nmhnrwm .. med n may he mmnnuly -mm: m.n.n Vfl mum Wm! 39 Fourlmy. me purpose 0! penex name Is to warn a devendenc onne oonseduences 0! rK7n—wmp|\erIIm wnn cne levms cl me order or rudgrnenx agamsl rum. Even |hnugh the Defendanl was presern In ceun when me cdnsem Judgmem was drawn up and pmnounoeflr man cdnsern Judgrnern was no: endorsed wnn any name under Order 45 rule mg or the Rmes. wnne sne certainly knew me terms onne Consermludgmerlh (here was no ewdence man she had knew 0! or been gwen any wnnen nouee do (he eensequenees e1 nun— eornpnanee with me terms e4 xne order or judgment Nor ' me Plalnlflfs or men souenore msssl on mdudvlg a penal not me consem Jddgrnenc when n was negduaced, agreed upon, dmwn up‘ pronounced rn Conn. and men sealed. 40 Pnov to fihng cne eopnceuon under order 52 rule 3 of me Rules fur Ieeve Io make an aopncaudn «or an order 01 eomnnnen agamsl me De(endanL Ihe Plamliffs‘ seneners nad on one eecesien by letter dated 13 February 2023 wrmen no me nerendenrs So Defendant‘: eveged non-cdmpnenoe mm are consem Judgmenl Thal leller ended by saying: rson me ‘/7! voew or the abut/u our chwnls reserve ms»! ndrus rr. tskma any aupwpmals amen or avenue agarns: your clrnnt wnereupdn ms rereven: eases mnmsd men as home by your drenl “ Around six weeks later, he Hammfs med mat eppncamn vageuern srn mart: ynrmexyuee «nu. s.n.r n-nhnrwm s. u... m my r... nrwhrnflly mm: dun-mm vu mum vwm 41 In eflecl, the Detenaem has never been gwen any noneemm, .1 she neglects to obey me cnnsem Judgment, srre womd be name to proeess of exaclman forlhe purpose ovcompeurrrg her to, mcmamg eprrrrnmal pmceedmgs. The P\am(Mi have never given her npupe pr merr mlenfiun lo rnsmme commune! pmceedlngs against her 42. Lesuy. «trough the P\amI?WI1as urged (ms Com (0 Invoke us mhemnc powers under order 92 rule 4 of mo Rules In dispense wmr me penal mmce. 1 am 04 me view mat I cannot and should not do so 43 Order 92 rule A more Rifles provides Fur my rvmovalafdm/bl ms nereay declarud ma: rvalmng m mesa Rmes shall be aeerr-ea op Him! or even me mhsrsnl powers ulme Cam to make any mer es may be nemsssry (A7 premrr rnwstnw or In premu an abuse av my process or me Court’ 44. I am ov me mew max I uannm exercnae that mherenl power, var two mam reasons 45 Fvslly, Ihe Inherent pawen of me cmm shomd urfly be Invoked whana mere Is a Vacuna In me rmes In Yamclshu sure no. Ltd 3. on v Slnml Modlz-I Products (M) Still and mu] 2 ML! 3:4, vc George J said Howvvsn whom (Mm is s Incunn In the mm mm pr-cm. Mon ma only rm. may me afbmsmfl mhomnuurlrdtcllon Do rm/oksd - r... 11 MIA sm mu yrm47yEXyUGG “Nana smm nnnhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... mrmu-y mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG vmm 46 Thus amverselyi wneie there is no lacuna ‘in ine Rules and me was ooniain pmvisions tor a given scenario, me Cam wiu not invoke its inneieni iurisdiunon. 47. In P-rmodalan IIIBF Sdn Bhd nan Sri Damk Sui Hamuh Bin Abu Samah ax Or: [was] I ML: 173, Syed Agni Barakbah FJ Sald’ '07dfll Wruls 4 RHC prcwde: For me removal of dmlhts II is Mlsby dedared that naming in mes: full! shaft be deemed In um 07 alien-1 me iiinmni pomis at the court In mnka nriy may as may be iiscwaiy Ia prawn! wuuslrze N In pimiii an em. DI in. pmadss of in. cowl - Wu mad mis to mean lhal the rules CEWVD1 mlarhra mm ms micisc ol the rnfielelll pawcrs by the war! so mg as ii deems It nsaessmy la pI:V9II4‘aIIym/1151108 of any abuse of ii: awn pwuass I! fuflow: mat where!/1e m/es mniainpiwisioiisniamig available SlI"!ClEIVHlH!EdlS5 in. court win not invoke VI! Inherent pow; 43 In my view, ineie Is no iacunu here. The provisions nun: Rules lhal I have msmiunad above oniy allow aispensaimn .21 service oi a iuugrneni or order pnwiuea inai ins panicuiai cimumslanoes am msl, we no! me endarsamant oi a pan.-an under om: A5 iuie my 49 In Vometshil Safza Co. Ltd 5. Or: v sinma Mei1rcaVPIuducls (M) Sdn BhI1.VC George J also saia: -m mun nu always nimn innimniiuiisimiun Ia rsgu/MI VI! mi pmceedmfls oi-1.. 92 i 4 L7! in. was 0! the Nign cm 1990 Iuwvmres mis to be me pesimn Dagellnnl SIN mac: yniiaiiaxyuau “Nair s.ii.i nmihnrwm be LAIQ4 M may i... nflmnnflly MVMI dnuumnl VII nF\uNG Wm! Huwever Ina: VS mm mun mar themdge maylanale mm. rules of calm and make his own mfies M mm» and ponsdurv /nmnsmmnl mm wmrari rules am: mmma praaices Thai: 75 no mm mi hum me )0 time, -slubllshud rub: and /Jracmss bnomv outdated Fav mam, than are rules and prsaicas Ina! mm /0! nxtmdcd ma/5 Sam: 9/ Min min: and pitcher: uou/d plmapx be done awuy with or al Iaastszvasrn/my-1 Nuw rulu would be brought in Mmem, ins riolopen to »nrlMdual;udg:.rovavsri rm me mnremnce alpadgus in ma nuporv mmseironue/rm donwnywim m sou»-ans av adopt mmzvahva pumams, However weN—lnlm-ilialisd Mai and of mm, .1 wmmm, mu»! lam! to . form ofmarchyl )( change: an cslivd Ibr, wwal m to an dun: is to haw mm min committee — the munlbovs arwmi am Cavefufly setoctad Iran: the Bunch and kum memben av live Bar and mamas me Ammey General or in ruprssemalive and men I5 headed by none any man me me! Justice — givl due cnnsvdarsllori Ia me new ideas and have the rule: du/yamonaod. And will such ameriflrrwnls m ollaclad, 1». ommlss and pmum tanner be rgnomd and rlnw pmmmn may rm! D5 rrflwarvllmufl mmm men than is . /gum in the m/-: Ind pmcl/oe men and only morn may the afovesaid mhslent msaiaian be iII\/Dkfld ' 50 Likewise, in the Singapore case M sumung Corp v Chinese Chamber Rnalzy PII Lhi [znoq 1 SLR (R) :52, Chen Hick Tm JA said‘ we endorse ma views or me judge that geuerafly mm the Rules of Cam! haw expvassly pmvmu met an or mine: be am in 5 csnaln cmmmnoe. ii 1! mi nu in. court In ammdo me my pruvisiwl /11 name oi n. immu pfiw-rs >.uu.m sm Mk7£aIEyrm47nEXyUGG “Nair sm mmhnrwm .. HIGH M mm .. nflginliily mi. dnuuvinnl _ .m«c Wm! Nu wan shoum arrogate unla risefla news! to act uamrary to me was me Me makrng powers are mnfwrerl upon me was Cammnree. me mm man not uwlp ms powws and nmcuons ol the was Camrmflu Sat rm Svskmn [1179] AC 2147. u, n us Izplmzm what I: clclny pwvldedrnapafltcwlnvrulrrs ur-acs(abIeorwvu.»1,lha sauna Much Nu court should take would an to oflhr as news on n /or the mnstderalmn ome Rule: Commmze am new to amend m at bend n to relied wins! :1 mm Isms: or more aesname - 51 consequently, I lmd mat me penal nohce 4s mandalmy and cannot be duspensed mm (or wdgrnenm or orders lequmng an ad in be none. 52. As lhe consenuuagmem ma requne nne Defendanl (0 do a pcsmve ac! am am nu! oomam any penal nahoe, me Consent Judgment oomd not be envorced by way 01 cnmmmal lur as long as u am not oontam a pena\ nonae. Thus. me Leave Order should nclhave been made and us Mable to he set aside Amdavns in commllul proceedings by Counsnl lo: the Flainlm 53. me Leave Order resuned Imrn an apphcauon me P\a\nMlNed under Order 52 rule 3 M «be Rmes, winch pmwde . 41; Na npnhcalron to a Court Ivar an order of committal! agamsr any person may be mm unless fieavs m make men an appllnuhan has boon gran!-:1 n. snmrdlnco mm rm: rule »...m.m am mmc: yrm47yEXyUGG «me snn n-nhnrwm be LAIQ4 m may he annmun mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm ‘Dcharldan bersetlqu lmluk nlenapanan lmnyataan rmgkas tentarlq selapal. darl penctpfsun [sums -susm KIVCHEN“ aengsn renne- lomla yang lilperselu/ul bersanlu alen ksduadlla plhak /-xenyalnn ). belsmz mm Imrarlg darrpadz V male! 2: 1 male: nag. Iampuh 12 buhm man man peuulujllnrl Mn-alarms can Plalnll/-P/smll/flan Delamiun dl mutarlsn Dlllrlfllfl y-ng bemlamll an v2 G-ll Labuh Acharl m:laa Geovgalown M1/nu plnsng, Malaysla moslmn nu-mun‘), dsman syaral Dahawa Kerlyulaan Iarwbul tldak menganalmgl apéhilia pemam yang Daleh merlyehsbkan pengakllarl lnamlnulamlm Dalia Pram!!!-P/lsmlrfdarl Delsndarl‘ The P|aln|lfl‘s allegallon ls me: me Delenaanmla not pump the slgn conllnunusly and ln a ocnsplcuous place In her res|aurant 6 In opposing me Commmal Appllcauan, me Delendanl contends that sne has complled wan lnls Slgnage Term. In applylng lo sel aslue me Leave order, she contends me same. and funner ralses three procedural /lecnnlcal grounds ln set aslae me Leave Order (l) The cansenl Judgment was nol personally served on her under Order 45 mle 7(2l(al ol me Rules; (up The Corlsenl Judgment was nal endursed wilh me rlollce under Omer 45 rule 7(4) of me Rules. and The three affidavlls ln suppon ol me Plalnlrffs appllcallcln lar leave (colleclwely. -counsels Affidavils") wmcn culrnlnaled H’! lne Leave Order were amnned by me Plainllfls‘ counsel, who had no personal knuwledge ol lhe nlaners deposed lo. v... ; nlll sm mu ynn47vEXyUGG “Nair Smnl ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 M may he nflilnnflly mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm 55. 57 42; An nppmzmw A» such as»: muflln macs ex pans to the Court by a name afapphcslmfl sllpporbd by a amemena seflmg 00! mo name and desmmcn arm: appftcarlt me name desenuhan and address ufmopsrwn sought to be mmnunadmd 1». ground: on whim mx mnwvvltllts souqhl, andbyan alrmuvu, la a. mud adorn the APO/rmbon 1; mania. var-Mrvv ms rm. nlrod an - The nurnese of me affidavit under Omar 52 rm: 3 1:! me was is |nezs1ora to verifying the (acts ruhed on As Order 52 o! the Rmzs does not coniam any allpmanans on ma amdavus Mad puvsuam |o as prwismns. The Drovisxons of Order 41 ohm: Rules. on 'AWdavi!s" should Inerumm he lnukad a| own 41 ml: 5(1) provides’ ‘Subpc! m cm; 14, ms 2(2)am1 42;, fa pusgmpll 42; or lms rule Ind 10 any omar nuns undu cm: as. Mr 31 an amm my mum my such ram .. ma mam: 1: we was own knowledge :a pa». ' In M an Gvoup Crvdll sun. Bhd. v Lu Shoo Khoon [19:51 1 CLJ131, Shankar J (as he was men) said ‘A second Down‘ wmcn M911: lo be ama~.m..1 1: ms: ms pvicfrw al sa/rcrlors themselves II/mg contsrmous aflidavrls m pundmg appacawns mourn be discouraged The name: am (he wants andn .3 they who mwm b: grvmg swdsnne ~ u... )1 cl 2. sm mac: yrmanaxyunn «mm. 5.1.1 ...m.mm .. .1... 1: my 1... mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII .mm v-max 55 In Pacific lrllor-Link Sdn Bhd v mm. k Irapal atzu vessel “M:ka¢sari|a" [1999] MLJU m, a prehmmary ohledlon was upheld agalnsl an emclaml deposed la by counsel lonne Defendant for as appllcallnrl to slay lne proceedings and, wllnovl any suppamve amclavll. me appllcallon was alsnuseed. 59 elven me serlous name and cnnsequences ol cummmal proceedings and mal lne amdavn Med under Order 52 rule 3 ol lne Rules IS lor lne depnnenl lo venly lacls whlch he VS able at his nwn knowledge prove, I find mal me Plalnllfls Counsel snausd nel nave affirmed the counsels Alnaavlls m suppnrl elme Leave Apphcetlorl. Tnal task sneula have been lell to me Plelnlms themselves, more so when lne allegea norrluulrlpllanoe wlm me Consent Judgmenl |ook place ln Penang and was fur plmlrlg upa sbgnaqe eonlmuously lwelve -nonlns. so. elven lhal me Slgnage underlhe Slgnags Term was to be alsplayed at me Defendanfs reslauranl ln Ferlang. whether or nel me Delenaanl had mmplied wlln lnal was somelhlng mac lne P|aln|iHs had lo depose In and verlfy. ncl lhslr Cmlnsel 61 Furlhermore, url\‘1erOm:r an lull 2 of me Rules, a aeponenl otan affidavll may he cmss—examIned on man affidavll Tha| pasellalllly IS a lunher reason ler Counsel and Sallcllors lor lne nany nm In alrmn cnnlerllious amaavlls on nenalv nflheir chants ummm IN mcalzmmaxvuaa «me s.n.l luvlhnrwm be used M mm ms nflmnallly mm: mm. vs: arlum WM! 62 Havlng sand that. l Ilnd lnal lhe miller cl lne PlalntlFfs' counsel slgnlng the Counsel's Alfidavrls alone would name ralal lame Leave Appllcamen orlo me Leave order. Tne pivmal quesnon sIlH rernelns, Is as to wnelner or no| lne Delendanl did or dld not breach lhe Consent Judgment IS semelnlng Ihal was supposed to have been be delennrnea al the nearing ol the cernrnmal Appllcallrm, :1 n nad proceeded m that Conclusion 63. 64 65. Havlng laun-1 ln Iavcur cl lne Delendanl me: me absence at any penal nolloe on we consenl Judgmenl was lacal lo any communal proeeedings. 4 lnerelore allowed me Defendant‘: Applucallon lo sel aslde the Leave Order In sefllng Eslde |he Leave order, I furlher make the corlsequenllal order lnal lne commrnal Applicauon be slruck out, wlln llbsny la me afresh As for coals I onierlhat me Plalnllns to pay eesls of RMB.Ofl0 0010 me Delendanl. subled lo allecaler. «or both me Delenuanrs Appllcallan and me convnmal Anplleallon Da|sd the sol" day c1Navsmber zuza Put u and Counsel: Gan .1er Nynn (Eshter Her Sn Ymg wim her) [Messrs Paul Cheah Associates] 1orme Fkannmls Maggm Khan (Chang Xm nan wnn heq [Messrs op Khon & Assamams] [or the Delendanl L-gislazions mhrud: omerw Me 7141 rule 5(1),A5 mle 5(1)(a), 45 rule 7121(aL 45 rule 71411 45 we 7(7) and 52 rule 31 Order 92 nne 4 Rules of ccun, 2012 c. .5 referred: Allporl Allred James v Wong Soon Lan [1969] 1 MLJ 335 Dewan Pevmagaan Melayu Ma1ays1s Negen Jnhar V Menleri Besav Johor 5 Ors[201G]7 MLJ1 Loh Eng Leong 5. Anor v Lo Mun Sen 5. Sons Sdn BM 1: Anar [21:03] A MLJ 284 Million Gmup Credit sun. Bhd. v Lea Shoo Kmmn [1985] 1 cu 181 Wastech Vnduslnal Systems Sdn Bhd v N 5 c Resources Sdn arm 8. D75 [2013] 10 ML.) 537 Pacme Vnlsr-Lrnk Sdn Ehd v Permhk kapax alau vessel “Makatsarud [1999] MLJU 721 Fevmodalan MBF sun Bhd v Tan sn Damk Sen Hamzah Em Abu Samah 8. Drs [1958] 1 ML.) 178 Slvaswalhy Kandasaml v Daluk Saravanan Mumgan 1!. Anar Appea\ [2022] 2 CLJ 202 Syamkat Pemmahan Pegawal Kenuaan sun and 1/ Sn Kamakmur [No 2) [1993] 5 MLJ 756 Samsung Corp v cnmesa Chamber Reauy Pie Lid [2oo4}1 SLR (R1 382 Yometshu Ssrzo Co Ltd 5 Or: V Sfnma Med1calProd1Acls (M) Sdn End [1996] 2 MLJ 334 Fue u 1.: u [N ux11ca|Eyrm47ya><yunG “Nuns Smnhn-v1hnrwH\I>e 1;... 1: mm 1.. mm-1 mm: dun-mm VII .mm v-max 7 wrreirrer or rrei me Defendant has complied wrirr of breached the signage Term anrre Cansem Judgment is an issue to be decided In the dxspasal of me cornrniiial Applicauori. Trrus. ims Judgrneni win address Ihuse three prodedurei /iednnrcei grounds. Ground 1: The corrnm Judgmanl ms rm personally sorvnd B. The Signage Term involved an act met We Defendant was required |:) do, as opposed to something which the Defendanl was to abstain from doing In thal respect the Signage Term was in essence a rrrerrdeiory erder 9 order 45 More Rules is errirued ‘Enlorcemenl of Judgments and orders" me 5 0! order 45 is erririied -Enrorcerrrenr onirdgrrreni 10 do or abstain Iram doing an ac! ’ suo—m1er1r(e)er rule 5 conoems rudgrnenis or orders lor dmrrg an act within a speufied lime‘ and suh~ru\e (13) Is In relation lo rudgmems or oniers to abstain lmm doing an act Thus. here we are Dnnuemed wrnrr sub~ru\e (1I(a) Further, sub»ru\e (A) is rdr where a plenum wishes lo enforce me rudqrnerri or order ioucrwrng lhal rarlure id comply by way or an order 01 corrrrrrmei 10 Eringing an o1Iha| iogerrrer, 0rdIr45 rull s(1)(e) read wi\h sub-rune (A)o1 thn Rum nmvides. where -apsrson rlalmid bya [udymvrvtarorvisrlo do err ac! wrmrr-r a {Mrs specrfiedm Iherurlgnlerrlornvderriillsusainoglscfsrudaitwflnm ma! rm or, as the case nay be, rrrrnrr. that r.rr.e as exterrrled or abridged under Draw 2, ml: 5, man ivbjsril to these rnrres me »....em IN Mkrrcaliynrrflyaxyunn “Nair s.r.r nnrihnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... irrimrry srrrr. dun-mm r.. eriurm vwui nldgmanlovovlicr may be enforred by mm ms have ama com. an wdevo/communal’ II To be read m oonlunc|mrl wllh mat Is om-1 45 ml: 7(Z)(a)o1lhe Rum. wmcn pmvudes. 'Su|7pe:l lo Omel 2: ml: 7(3), am paragraphs lay and m ohms me. an onm snau nnl be emmcad under rule 5 unlssk Lay a may at In: nldav had nun served Dencnnfly an ma puma required to do or awam «mm do-Ml xne acl m Quasllnn’ 17 ms. nrzwlslons for cunlnnmal pmeeedlngs are encompassed .n Order 52 Mlhe Rules, aptly emllled ‘Comm:tlal" Thus‘ anon Q to 0.45 r.712)(a) COVIVVUIIEV proceedings under Order 52 of lhe Rules are In be preceded by service of a copy of me order 0! judgment personally on the alleged oonlemnor 13 Here, the Consent Judgmenl was served on me Defendant‘: Snllcllors and not on her personally The Plamms do not dlspule that The Defendaruiherafore contends mam-e Plalrlllfls have Ialled to comply wllh order 45 rule 7(2)(a) cl me Rules, and max, lzy mew non-comuhanoe will! «ms essermal prerequlslle la commenclng communal pmceedlrlgs agamsl her. me Leave Order snuuld be set aslde Fae sulu m Mk1lC:IEyrm47yE)<yUGG “Nair Sum! n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 M may he mn.u-y mm: dun-mm VII munc vlmxl 14 Tne PlalntlFis' ripcsle to that conlanllcn Is (he! Order 45 rule 7(2)(a) onne Rules Is a not a stand-alone Pmvlslnn and ls nmlne be all and end all In regards to personal servloe ale ludgrnenr or order prior to enforcement by cemmlflal under me "paragraphs (61 and (7) onnls rule‘ lhal ll expressly menliuns. personal servrce pl lne order or ludgmsnl can be dispensed wnn Tnese provlde. '15) An order rsqlmlrlg . pwsorl Io alzslaln fmm domg an an may be ennmeu lmdel rule 5 mrwlmsremrmg that serves ole way onne ovdevrlasrlol been evrecream anmniarlce mm Illls rule l/me com 5 gain-hed Mu! pmldlng sum wwce, me person agalnsl whom or agalnsl whose prover» VIA‘ sauglll lo enraru mo omslnushad nailed lHuvoIt:mor— re) by new we-nl wnen me M197 wax medal 01 la} by being named or me mm: 0! the M12! wnemer by rempnm, telegram or othcvwlse (7) Mlhmlt prumfllca In In paw-I undo! am: 52, rule 5, me Court may dlsporlsa mm sumac on copy even may under [hrs M: N r1Inlrllrsrl)u§tloor2so' 15. Under the firsl, l e, Order 45 rule 7(6) of the Rules, persunel servrce :11 a judgment or order requmng a person to eesrein lrum doing an act can be dlspensed mm 01 two lrlslznees ll) if he/she was present wnen me Juagmenl er unierwas made, or upset): em mac: ynnayexyunn “Nair s.n.r nuvlhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m my r... mrmury mm. dnuuvlnnl VII .nunc vtmxl oi) vi ne/she nae been named anne terms b1 the Judgment or wear. Ball! ESSEMIEHY mean that persons! service can be dvspensed with where M can be shown (ha! (ha defiendam knew 111 the order or iudgmern and ev ne terms. 15 I find Ihal me nelendarn knew of «he Consenl Order and me Signage Tenn: 1.) she was present m person {or the medralxon and dunng the discussions wnen that Signage Term was breached, discussed, vonnunaced and agreed upon, (H) the Consenl Judgment mm the Swgnage Tenn was men wnrneduanely drawnrup‘ signed off by me names’ respemive summers, ana pronounced me same day m open Cowl m her presence, (no me Consent Judgment reqwed than the terms and cement ov the sign to be displayed m her restaurant pursuant to |he Svgnage Tenn were |o be agreed upon between me panes By a Ieuer dated 1322023, ner Sohcnors Informed me Hannufls‘ soucnars that sne had earned cm the Sugnage Terms by 7.2 2023. Tne: eonmnauan by me Decendanrs sulicnors cause only have been on me Devenaanrs mslruclwons: ena Pzgc : n! 1. IN mmc:\Eynn47yE><yUnG -nae s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm VII anum v-mm (Iv) lrral epnnrrnalion, and me lacl lllal Ihe uelenoanl cerrlesls Ihe cprnrnmal Applicalson by I:on|endlng mal sne has mmplied wilh lnal Slgrlage rernr necessarrry rneans lnal sne ocvrcusly she knew allne Slgnage Term. had ceen nolmed our, and had lurlner reaened a consensus wllh me Plalnlrlls on lne lerms ane mntenl pl me sign to be dlsplayed ln her reslauranl In accordance wiln me Slgnage Term 17 Nevertheless‘ l find lhal order 45 rule 7(6) ol lhe Rules does rrpl apply nere and merelore does ml asslsl me Plalnliffs Thal nralllsinn expressly sleles lnal rl relales |n "An older requlrlng a person Io abslsrrr /rorn doing an act’ ll ll was rrreanl lo also apply lo orders or ludgrnenls lhal requlre a persurl lo do an my lnen ll would rlolhave msaelhalqualmaalron Dfdl ‘ ’ 18 The signage Term was rml a lerrn In lne consenl Judgment lrrel reeulree me oelendanl lo aeslpln lrorn dolng an eel, ll was a term nremlallng ner tn carry cul me acl el urspleyrng lne slgn rn ner reslaulanl. 19 Muving on lo Order 45 rule 7(7) ol lne Rules Thls provislon allows persorlil sevvlce of a ludgnrerrl or order lo be dlspensed wllh ll lrre ceurl Ihlnks ll IS lust to up so. In my Vlew, unlrke rule may rl ls rml lust reslncled lo judgrnenls or alder: reeurnng a person lo ahs|ain lrprn dolng an act, but extends lo arm ceuers judgments or orders requrrlng e uerwn to do an act Tnls ls because ll expressly says -under Ihls rule: l e rule 7 cl Order 45. Rule 7 IS enlrllea ‘Service of copy orruagrnenlororaerprcreqursne lo enicrcerrlerrl urrder rule 5 " .2... A a! u IN Mk7lC:IEyrm47yEXyUGG “Nair s.n.r n-vlhnrwm be u... m my r... nflmnellly snrr. dun-mm vu .rruuo vwul In turn, Rule 5 ts enlmed -Enrorcement anudgmenl 10 do or abslarn from domg an act "Enth to do and lo abslatn tram «mg 20 Thus, I find that the Plaintitts can tnvotte Dmer 45 me 7(7) or the Rules to seek a oisoensatmn M pevsarlal sennoe :71 the consent Judgment on the Dedenaant The question then ts whether on the lacls aha clrcumstanues the Courl thinks tt just Ia tstsoense wrth that oersonat servtce 21 In my vlew tt ts Ftrstty. fur the reasons I had set out eartter tn paragraph ts, the Defendant had run knowteage of the consent Judgment and tts terms. 22 seoonoty. when the consent Judgment was served on the De1ent1ant‘s Sulicitors. there was no atzjectton from either the Detendant nr her soltcttors to that unttt now And. despite not oetng personatty served wtth rt. the Defendant had sttll gone on to carry out what she behave: and in ts were acts that complied wtth the Stgrvage Tenn tn the consent Judgment 23 The ouestton or “test” necessanly Involves oatattctng the postlinns otthe cnmpeung parties In my view tt woutd be wttetty tmtusl to the ptatnttrts to auow the Detenaant lo oetatedty nhiecl to servtee ot the ConsertIJudgmen| on her sottettors and tnstst on personat semoe on her person when she knew otana was aersonally vnvolved tn the torntutatton at the consent Judgment agraed to the terms and oontent ot the start that was to be displayed tn her restaurant. and then carried out aettt whtch she aneges oornpries wnh the stgnage Term In the consent Judgment. Plrlmzl IN Mk7tC:IEyhrr47vEXyUGG «mt. s.tt.t turthnrwm be tn... M my r... nflntnaflly MVMI m.t.n. VII mum Wm! 24 I (hevefule have no hesnlalwon In Invnking the discrehon mvesled in «ms ceun under Order 45 Me my of me Ruies Io mspense wulh personal servme of a may or me consem Juagmem an me neveneenx, on me ground cm I find |hal 1: 15 ‘us! an an so m his case. 25 Aoocrdinmy. I msrmse me nevendanvs cor-nerman that the Leave Order snoum be dismwssed because me Cnnsen| Judgment was not served versnnevy on her. Ground 2: No ndtico on me Consent Juaemom 26 onions rule 7(4)(-)o1m- Rulu provides ‘Them shaflbe enumeu an me copy clan umer served me mtsmle a name m Farm samromung ms person on mm. are cunyIss:Iv¢d— m me uass alsemce underpersgwm (2; yr ho negkacls m obey me umel mm». me mm specmea therein or, me amor Is 1;. absll/n from domg an .4, mm mm msobcyt me urdsv, he rs hub): In pmcnsr M eueculran Ia mwvw-Hum Ia now u ' ms pravlswan clearly apphes to orders and Judgmems av mm oersuesmn, |o do an em and lo abstain rmm domg an an 27 “Farm 6:’ refers (0 max omppenaux Alalhe Rmes. and us commonly reiened lo as e penal nuxice ord-r1 rulo 7 -mm Rum pmwaes. "ms Forms m Appenmx A man be me imam appmme ml/1 sum vanatlorvs asme mmumslanaes eme namuflav case ream: u... m .1. 14 em mmc: yrmayaxyunn «me smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-836-12/2020

PLAINTIF Munir Bin Hashim DEFENDAN 1. ) Dr Liew Nyoke San 2. ) Kajang Plaza Medical Centre Sdn Bhd 3. ) Dr Mohd Yazid Bin Bajuri 4. ) Dr Badrul Akmal Hisham Bin Md Yusoff 5. ) Dr Mohd Shahir Bin Anuar 6. ) UKM Kesihatan Sdn Bhd

(Tuntutan dibatalkan pada tarikh 15/9/2023 terhadap D 3 hingga D6 dengan kebebasan untuk menfailkan semula)The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was for medical negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The 1st Defendant was a medical doctor practicing with the 2nd Defendant whereas the 3rd to 5th Defendants were medical doctors practicing with the 6th Defendant at the material time.From reading the facts as stated in the Statement of Claim it clearly comes across to the Court that there are multiple cause of actions against the Defendants. Against the 2nd and 6 th Defendants the Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty.

11/01/2024

YA Dato' Haji Akhtar Bin Tahir

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5d11b1b5-eb2e-4753-bc1e-57fa9009138a&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA BAHAGIAN SIVIL NO. GUAMAN SIVIL : WA-22NCvC-836-12/2020 ANTARA MUNIR BIN HASHIM (NO. SYARIKAT: 680981-A) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. DR LIEW NYOKE SAN 2. KAJANG PLAZA MEDICAL CENTRE SDN BHD 3. DR MOHD YAZID BIN BAJURI 4. DR BADRUL AKMAL HISHAM BIN MD YUSOFF 5. DR MOHD SHAHIR BIN ANUAR 6. UKM KESIHATAN SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 486198-W) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 11/01/2024 11:10:07 WA-22NCvC-836-12/2020 Kand. 59 S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was for medical negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The 1st Defendant was a medical doctor practicing with the 2nd Defendant whereas the 3rd to 5th Defendants were medical doctors practicing with the 6th Defendant at the material time. The brief facts 2. The brief facts as pleaded in the Statement of Claim indicated that the Plaintiff was first treated by the 1st Defendant who was practicing with the 2nd Defendant for an injury on his right knee as a result of a fall. The 1st Defendant treated the Plaintiff from 2013 to 2017for the said injury. 3. Being dissatisfied with the treatment of the 1st Defendant as his injury did not heal satisfactorily the Plaintiff then sought treatment with the 6th Defendant where he was treated by 3 different doctors. 4. However, as his injury did not heal even after multiple treatment the Plaintiff filed this claim for medical negligence against the all the 4 doctors and breach of fiduciary duty against the 2nd and 6th Defendant. S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5. The issue facing the Court at the case management stage was whether it was proper to join all the Defendants in 1 civil suit taking into considerations that all the doctors had treated the Plaintiff at different times and at 2 different hospitals which were in no way connected to each other. Order 34 of the Rules 6. The Court’s duties at the pre-trial case management stage under Order 34 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) are well defined. For purposes of clarity the relevant provision is reproduced in full: 1. Orders and directions for just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (O. 34 r. 1) (1) Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Court may, at any time after the commencement of proceedings, of its own motion, direct any party or parties to the proceedings to appear before the Court, in order that the Court may make such order or give such direction as it thinks fit so that- (a) all matters which must or can be dealt with on interlocutory applications and have not already been dealt with may so far as possible be dealt with; and (b) such directions may be given as to the future course of the action as appear best adapted S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal thereof. (emphasis mine) 7. Under this provision it is clear that the Court is empowered to give direction that is best adapted to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of a case. 8. Further Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules empowers the Court to strike out a claim in the following circumstances: 19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18 r. 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; (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or (emphasis mine) (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be. Rules as to joinder of cause of actions and parties 9. The Rules also provides the circumstances under which cause of actions and parties may be joined. Order 15(1) stipulates as follows: 1. Joinder of causes of action (O. 15 r. 1) (1) Subject to rule 5(1), a plaintiff may in one action claim relief against the same defendant in respect of more than one cause of action- (a) if the plaintiff claims, and the defendant is alleged to be liable, in the same capacity in respect of all causes of action; (b) if the plaintiff claims or the defendant is alleged to be liable in the capacity of executor or administrator of an estate in respect of one or more of the causes of action and in his personal capacity but with reference to the same estate in respect of all the others; or (c) with the leave of the Court. S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10. From the reading of this Rules, it is clear that the only joinder of more than 1 cause action allowed is against the same Defendant. In this case there are multiple cause of actions against different Defendants. 11. Further there is no nexus between the treatment given by the 1st Defendant which took place from 2013 to 2017 when practicing at the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd to 5th Defendants who treated the Plaintiff at different times within the same hospital. 12. Similarly, there is no nexus between the 2nd and 6th Defendants which are separate entities incorporated separately. Further, the Plaintiff’s allegation of misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duties against this 2 Defendants is on the promotional materials issued by them which are dissimilar to each other. 13. This brings to fore another provision of the Rules 4. Joinder of parties (O. 15 r. 4) (1) Subject to rule 5(1), two or more persons may be joined together in one action as plaintiffs or as defendants with the leave of the Court or where- (a) if separate actions were brought by or against each of them, as the case may be, some common question of law or fact would arise in all the actions; and S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (b) all rights to relief claimed in the action (whether they are joint, several or alternative) are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. 14. In this case there is no common question of facts between any of the Defendants. The facts surrounding the treatment between all the doctors are different and so are the facts in relation to the 2 hospitals. There are certainly no common question of law and fact between the Defendants neither the claim arises from the same transaction or series of transactions. 15. In short, the Court ruled in this case that there was a misjoinder of cause of action as well as misjoinder of parties. The powers of the Court on the face of this misjoinder are as stated as follows: 6. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (O. 15 r. 6) (1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter. (2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application- S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (emphasis mine) Conclusion 16. Using the Court’s powers under Order 34, Order 18(19) and Order 15(6) the Court directed that the claims against the 3rd to 6th Defendants to be struck off with a liberty to file afresh. The Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendant could be proceeded with as there was a common question of fact or law between the 2 Defendants. 17. The Court in pursuance of this decision directed the Plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim to reflect and limit the claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendant. 18. The Plaintiff however refused to abide by the Court’s direction to amend on the grounds that they have appealed the decision of the Court to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd Defendant to 6th Defendants to the Court of Appeal. 19. As an appeal does not act as an automatic stay and as the Plaintiff had intentionally refused to abide by the Court’s directive the Court also struck out the Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants with a cost of RM5,000. S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20. Further particulars mentioned in the Statement of Claim were that the 1st Defendant was a specialist orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital belonging to the second Defendant. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants were medical doctors practicing at the Hospital belonging to the 5th Defendant. 21. The Statement of Claim then proceeded to particularize the 2nd and 6th Defendants’ vision and mission statement as well as the medical services provided by both the Hospitals. 22. The Plaintiff then alleges that both the Hospitals had misrepresented to the patients including the Plaintiffs as to their capabilities and services provided by the respective hospitals. 23. The Plaintiff then makes a sweeping statement that all doctors practicing in both the Hospitals have been specific targets to achieve in order to maintain their practices at the 2 Hospitals. 24. The Plaintiff then narrates an incident happening on 7th December 2013 whereby he injured his right knee. After suffering the injury the Plaintiff consulted the 1st Defendant who was practicing with the 2nd Defendant. 25. In a nutshell the allegations against the 1st and 2nd Defendants is for medical negligence on being unable to treat his injuries causing him other complications related to the treatment meted out by the 1st Defendant between the years 2014 until March 2017. S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26. From March 2018 onwards the Plaintiff sought treatment with the 6th Defendant where he was treated by the 3rd, 4 and 5th Defendants for the continued pain on the right leg. The Plaintiff alleges further medical negligence against all the 3 doctors practicing with the 6th Defendant. Multiple cause of action 27. From reading the facts as stated in the Statement of Claim it clearly comes across to the Court that there are multiple cause of actions against the Defendants. Against the 2nd and 6 th Defendants the Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty. Dated: 11.1.2024 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: Pravin Kumar Tetuan P S Ranjan & Co. Tingkat 17, Wisma Lee Rubber No. 1, Jalan Melaka 50100 Kuala Lumpur For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Shaline Rajan Tetuan Law Chambers Of Vin Sa & Ian Unit 205, Block B Pusat Dagangan Phileo Damansara 2 No. 15, Jalan 16/11 Off Jalam Damansara 46350 Petaling Jaya Selangor Nama Peguamcara: Yeow Tze Yi Tetuan Yeow, Yap & Co. B-25-2, Jalan C180/1 Dataran C180 43200 Cheras Selangor S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Nama Peguamcara: Lucy Lee Zhe Hui Tetuan Gan Ho & Razlan Hadri Suite K-3-10, Level 3 Blok K, Solaris Mont Kiara No. 2, Jalan Solaris 50480 Kuala Lumpur Nama Peguamcara: Tan Pui Yi Tetuan Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong Unit 5-03, 5th Floor Wisma Badan Peguam Malaysia 2 Leboh Pasar Besar 50050 Kuala Lumpur Nama Peguamcara: Sathisharajah Yuvarajah Tetuan Jayadeep Hari & Jamil Suite 2.03, Block A No. 45, Medan Setia Satu Plaza Damansara Bukit Damansara 50490 Kuala Lumpur S/N tbERXS7rU0e8Hlf6kAkTig **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

22A-566-2011

PLAINTIF BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD DEFENDAN PERTAMA PERDAGANGAN SDN. BHD.

Enclosure 95 was the Plaintiff’s appeal to a Judge in Chambers against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) in refusing to grant leave to the Plaintiff to issue a writ of execution to enforce a consent judgment entered against the Defendants more than six years since the date of the consent judgment. The court has allowed the Appeal on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s application for leave to issue a writ of execution filed was well within a reasonable period. The delay, if any, had been sufficiently explained by the Plaintiff pursuant to the requirement under O. 46 r. 3(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012. The SAR has failed to consider that the Plaintiff’s affidavits had extensively set out very reasonable grounds and reasons for the time it had taken to execute the Consent Judgement.

11/01/2024

YA Dato' Mohd Radzi bin Harun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c70940ec-75fc-4d37-9b36-414c363227f8&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ 22A-566-2011 KM95 1.2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO. 22A-566-2011 BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD ...PLAINTIFF AND 1. PERTAMA PERDAGANGAN SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. : 34408-H) 2. IR JAMES LOH TIENG KOH @ LOH TIENG KANG (I/C NO. : 570618-02-5029) 3. LOH TIENG HOCK (I/C NO. : 580709-02-5103) 4. ISMAIL BIN IDRIS ...DEFENDANTS (I/C NO. : 520316-02-5503) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] Enclosure 95 was the Plaintiff’s appeal to a Judge in Chambers against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) in refusing to grant leave to the Plaintiff to issue a writ of execution to enforce 11/01/2024 11:03:17 22A-566-2011 Kand. 123 S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 a judgment entered against the Defendants more than six years since the date of the judgment. I had decided to allow the Plaintiff’s appeal. The Defendants now appealed against that decision. BACKGROUND [2] Having perused the affidavits, I found the following facts: 2.1 In 2004, the 1st Defendant (D1) obtained a loan of RM15 million from the Plaintiff. The 2nd - 4th Defendants (D2 - D4) stood as guarantors. D1 defaulted the loan. 2.2 Consequent to the default, parties entered into a negotiation which culminated in a restructured loan of RM19 million in 2008, in addition to the outstanding balance amount from the original 2004 loan amounting to RM755,673.62. The Defendants defaulted again to service the outstanding amount of the original 2004 loan and the restructured loan. 2.3 The Plaintiff filed this Suit (Suit 566) against the Defendants for the amount of RM19,846,041.42 being the outstanding sum on the restructured RM19 million loan. S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 2.4 The Plaintiff filed a separate Suit 22A-563-2011 (Suit 563) to claim an amount of RM753,58,53 outstanding on the original 2004 loan. 2.5 A judgment in default was entered against the Defendants for Suit 563 on 8.8.2011. 2.6 On 15.3.2012 parties entered into a Consent Judgment for this Suit 566 with conditions, among others, for the outstanding amount to be paid by the Defendants within 1 year from the said date. The Defendants failed to fulfill the said condition. 2.7 Following the JID and Defendants' failure to comply with the condition of the Consent Judgment, the Plaintiff commenced the following actions: (i) Foreclosure Proceeding (a) On 6.10.2013 the Plaintiff filed an OS for an Order for Sale of the Charged Land; (b) Following that, between December 2013 - April 2014 the Plaintiff and the Defendants negotiated; S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (c) Upon the negotiations, the Plaintiff set out its terms of settlement vide its letter to D1 dated 18.4.2014, which was agreed upon by D1 vide its letter dated 25.4.2014; (d) On 28.5.2014 a Consent Order was recorded on the Foreclosure, which was subsequently amended on 14.9.2015; (e) Pursuant to that Consent Order, D1 and a third party, Visi Sempena Sdn Bhd, was to enter into a private treaty for the sale of the Charged Land at an agreed price of RM20,555,943.62 or lower, as agreed between the Plaintiff and D1; (f) The Plaintiff discovered that D1 and Visi Sempena instead had entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) on the Charged Land at a price of RM1.00, without the Plaintiff’s prior knowledge; (g) Having been alerted that the Plaintiff will proceed to reactivate the Foreclosure of the Charged Land, without informing the Plaintiff, D1 and Visi Sempena entered into a Supplementary SPA on the Charged Land dated 27.11.2014 to vary the sale price of land from RM1.00 to RM20,555,943.62; S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (h) On 13.11.2014 the Plaintiff proceeded to re-commence the Foreclosure by filing an application to obtain directions to proceed with auction of the charged land, which was dismissed by the Registrar on 20.10.2015; (i) The Plaintiff did not succeed in all its appeals against that dismissal, with the Federal Court on 16.3.2017 dismissing the Plaintiff’s leave application to appeal after making a finding that D1 had acted in accordance with the Amended Foreclosure Order; (j) On 26.5.2020, the Plaintiff filed a separate action against the Defendants and Visi Sempena claiming fraud in their initial and Supplementary SPA over the Charged Land (Foreclosure Civil Suit); (k) The Defendant and Visi Sempena applied to strike out the Foreclosure Civil Suit which was dismissed by the High Court on 3.5.2021. Their appeal are still pending before the Court of Appeal. (ii) Bankruptcy (a) To execute the JID, the Plaintiff filed Bankruptcy Notices (BN) against D2 – D4 at the Alor Setar High Court; S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (b) Vide order dated 29.2.2016 the learned SAR allowed the BN to be served on D2 – D4 vide substituted service; (c) Vide letter dated 11.4.2016 D1 proposed another settlement, which was rejected by the Plaintiff vide its letter dated 26.4.2016; (d) D2 – D4’s applications to set aside the BN were dismissed by the SAR; (e) On 12.7.2017 the High Court allowed D2 – D4’s appeal against the SAR's dismissal and set aside the BN because the judgment sum stated in the BN differs from the sum stated in the JID obtained in Suit 563; (f) Following that, on 3.8.2017 the Plaintiff withdrew its Creditors Petition against D2 – D4 with liberty to file afresh. (iii) Settlement negotiations (a) While the above proceedings were taking place, the Plaintiff and the Defendants continued to partake in numerous sessions of negotiations to settle the claimed and outstanding sum; S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (b) In actual fact settlement negotiations between the Plaintiff and the Defendants had continuously taken place since 2007 until as recent as 2022. (iv) Writ of Execution (a) Consequent to the developments as set out in the preceding paragraphs, and as the date to enforce the CJ had lapsed on 15.3.2018, on 13.11.2018 the Plaintiff filed an application for leave to issue a writ of execution to enforce the CJ. (b) On 26.12.2018 the leave application was dismissed by the learned SAR. On 22.4.2019 the High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal against that dismissal and granted leave for the Plaintiff to execute the CJ. On 22.1.2020 the Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' appeal against the High Court's decision. (v) Winding Up proceeding (a) On 11.9.2019, following the High Court's decision on 22.4.2019 granting the Plaintiff leave to execute the JID and CJ, the Plaintiff issued two Statutory Notices pursuant to s. 465 of the Companies Act to wound up D1. S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (vi) Fortuna Injunction (a) On 7.10.2019 D1 filed for Fortuna Injunction to restrain the Plaintiff from presenting the winding up petition due to its pending appeal against the decision of the High Court. On 14.10.2019 the High Court granted an Interim Fortuna Injunction. (b) On 21.10.2019 the Plaintiff filed application to set aside the Interim Fortuna Injunction. After the inter partes hearing, on 13.5.2020 the High Court granted the Fortuna Injunction and dismissed the Plaintiff's setting aside application. On 14.10.2021 the Court of Appeal allowed the Plaintiff's appeal against the Fortuna Injunction. [3] What could be distilled from the facts above are that although the Plaintiff breached the 6-year period to execute the CJ, it had not slept on its rights. The Plaintiff was not a litigant who is successful but inactive. On the contrary the actions as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs demonstrated that the Plaintiff had continuously taken measures to file the relevant and correct applications to execute the CJ, albeit its agreement to stall them due to the Defendants’ requests. On its latest action to execute the CJ, the Plaintiff fought all the way to the Court of Appeal and successfully S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 obtained leave to execute the CJ pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s decision on 22.1.2020. But despite the leave, the Plaintiff cannot continue to execute the CJ as its hands were tied for the period 7.10.2019-14.10.2021 when the Fortuna Injunction was in effect. Immediately after that, the Defendants continuously attempted to seek settlement during the period of November 2021-February 2022, which were subsequently rejected by the Plaintiff. Six months after that, on 22.8.2022, the Plaintiff filed its 2nd application for leave to execute the CJ. This application was dismissed by the learned SAR on 3.2.2023. Hence the current appeal before me now. DECISION [4] At the hearing of the Plaintiff's application, I had informed both counsels that as the affidavit evidence and the written submissions before me were sufficient to enable me to decide on the application, requests by counsels to file further submissions were denied. [5] I must emphasize that this is actually the 2nd round of leave application by the Plaintiff for the issuance of a writ to execute a lapsed order. [6] The law governing the Plaintiff’s application for leave to issue the writ to execute a lapsed order is trite. O. 46 r. 3(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 provides that the Plaintiff shall state the reasons of its delay to enforce the JID within the 6 years’ time period: See Affin Bank Bhd v. Wan Abdul Rahman [2003] 1 CLJ 826; [2003] 2 MLJ 509. [7] As a first step, what this Court needed to do is to determine whether or not the Plaintiff had complied with the procedural requisites as set out in O. 46 r. 2(1), 3(1), 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) of the Rules. The Plaintiff’s application shall be by way of a notice of application in Form 88 supported by an affidavit- (i) identifying the CJ entered by both parties; (ii) stating the amount originally due under the CJ, the terms therein and the amount due at the date of this application; and (iii) setting out the reasons for the Plaintiff’s delay in enforcing the CJ. [8] Non-compliance with the above requirements could lead to the Plaintiff’s application being dismissed in limine, unless the Plaintiff can show to the satisfaction of the Court that such non-compliance has not caused any miscarriage of justice nor any occasion of prejudice to the Defendants that cannot be cured by Order 1A and Order 2 : Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad v Tampak Gemerlap & Ors [2019] MLJU 1374. S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [9] I am satisfied that the Plaintiff had used the correct form of application, had properly identified the CJ and the terms of the CJ entered by both parties on 15.3.2012, and the amount originally due under Suit 566 and the amount due at the date of this application had also been clearly spelt out in the Plaintiff’s supporting affidavits. [10] Having passed the first step, the remaining issue – which is the main issue – that needed to be determined by this Court is whether the Plaintiff had sufficiently explained its delay in filing the leave application and its delay in enforcing the CJ. [11] It is pertinent for me to regurgitate the factual matrix of the case leading to this Court allowing the Plaintiff’s appeal: (a) as the impugned CJ was entered by both parties on 15.3.2012, the 6 years’ time period for the Plaintiff to enforce the CJ lapsed on 15.3.2018; (b) the 1st time the Plaintiff filed for leave to execute the CJ was vide its application on 5.10.2018, which was successfully obtained by the Plaintiff on 22.1.2020 following the Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the High Court’s issuance of the leave; S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (c) the Defendants successfully obtained a Fortuna Injunction against the Plaintiff which was operative for the period 7.10.2019 - 14.10.2021. That injunction effectively halted and barred the Plaintiff to commence any enforcement actions against the Defendants. This bar was lifted on 14.10.2021 when the Court of Appeal allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal against the issuance of the said injunction; (d) by the time the Fortuna Injunction was lifted, the leave to execute the CJ which was granted pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeal on 22.1.2020 had already lapsed on 22.1.2021; and (e) the Plaintiff filed an application for leave to execute for the 2nd time on 22.8.2022 in Enclosure 95. [12] Apart from the prevailing circumstances and facts that led to the filing of Enclosure 95 as set out above, this Court also took Judicial Notice that between the period of March 2020 - November 2021, Malaysia was under various movement control orders to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, and in response to the rising numbers of Covid-19 cases in Malaysia, His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had declared an Emergency for the period 12.01.2021 - 01.08.2021. S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [13] The Defendants made a continuous attempt to seek settlement during the period of November 2021 - February 2022, which were subsequently rejected by the Plaintiff. Whilst all these were taking place, the writ of execution issued pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s decision on 22.1.2020 had expired on 22.1.2021. [14] With that backdrop, I made a finding that the Plaintiff’s 2nd application for leave to issue a writ of execution filed on 22.8.2022, was well within a reasonable period. The delay, if any, had been sufficiently explained by the Plaintiff. [15] It is trite law that it is the Plaintiff’s obligation to set out sufficient reasons for its delay in enforcing the CJ and not merely setting out chronology of events. [16] The learned SAR failed to appreciate all the above facts. He failed to consider that the Plaintiff’s affidavits had extensively set out very reasonable grounds and reasons for the time it had taken to execute the CJ. Those were not merely statement on chronology of events. [17] The SAR had erred for his failure to take into account all the events that had taken place since the Plaintiff commenced its action in October S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 2013 to execute the CJ until the few months in 2022 before the Plaintiff filed the 2nd leave application to execute the CJ. Had the SAR been diligent to peruse those events that actively took place during the span of that 9 years, he would not have dismissed the leave application by the Plaintiff. [18] The SAR’s brief reasonings stated that he was satisfied that the Plaintiff had raised sufficient and cogent reasons to support its application. However, relying on Pacific Sanctuary Holdings Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Ideal Prestige Sdn Bhd) v Masaland Construction Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 MLJ 692, the learned SAR concluded that he disregarded those cogent reasons upon his finding that the existence of the letters dated 18.4.2014 and 25.4.2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants formed a Settlement Agreement between them. He made a finding that as there was a Settlement Agreement between the parties, any dispute thereon constituted a new cause of action surrounding the Settlement Agreement which in effect has put Suits 563 and 566 to an end. The SAR then decided that the Plaintiff’s remedy was to file a fresh action to enforce the said Settlement Agreement and not to execute the JID and the CJ, which the SAR regarded as “otiose by the Settlement Agreement”. [19] The SAR’s reference to Pacific Sanctuary was correct. But his application of the principle laid down in that case that led him to arrive at the S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 conclusion that the 2014 letters formed a Settlement Agreement that put Suits 563 and 566 to an end was clearly a misdirection. [20] I had touched on these two letters in the earlier paragraph (refer paragraph 2.7 (i)(c)). In gist, the Plaintiff was in the midst of foreclosing the Defendants’ land charged for the loans. Upon negotiations, the Plaintiff set out its terms not to proceed with foreclosure vide its letter to D1 dated 18.4.2014, which was agreed upon by D1 vide its letter dated 25.4.2014. This culminated in a Consent Order entered by both parties on 28.5.2014, which was subsequently amended on 14.9.2015. The Plaintiff found the Defendants to have failed to fulfill the terms of the Consent Order and thus decided to re-commence the foreclosure of the charged land. This attempt by the Plaintiff was unsuccessful when the Federal Court ruled that the Defendants had actually fulfilled the terms of the Consent Order. In actual fact, the effect of the letters dated 18.4.2014 and 25.4.2014 was overtaken by the Consent Order dated 28.5.2014. Therefore, the issue of the 2014 letters being the Settlement Agreement and that any action to be taken by the Plaintiff against the Defendants shall be proceeded separately pursuant to that Settlement Agreement as decided by the SAR does not arise. The SAR had clearly erred and misdirected his mind when he dismissed the leave application premised on this issue. S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [21] As explained in the paragraphs earlier (refer paragraphs 2 (i), (j) and (k)), the Plaintiff had filed a separate action against the Defendants and Visi Sempena on their SPA over the Charged Land. The suit is still pending. Thus, the SAR’s suggestion for the Plaintiff to commence a separate action against the Defendants on this issue had to actual fact been initiated by the Plaintiff some 3 years earlier. [22] I am satisfied that here is clearly not a case of a successful but inactive litigant as explained succinctly by Justice Suriyadi Halim in MBT (M) Sdn Bhd v. Syarikat Perniagaan Mesra Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 LNS 25; [2004] 1 MLJ 676. The recurring flaws of the Plaintiff, if any, were its unbelievably soft, puny and accommodating stance towards a defaulting borrower, all of which are irrelevant for purposes of the leave application. [23] Enclosure 95 was therefore allowed with costs. Dated : 03 January 2024 -signed- (MOHD RADZI BIN HARUN) Judge High Court of Malaya S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 PARTIES: Solicitors for the Plaintiff: Abdul Rashid Ismail together with Azreen Ahmad Rastom and Nur Nadia Ahmad Jaidi Messrs. Rashid Zulkifli D2-5-5, Blok D, Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur Ref : RZ/100/2846/16 Email : info@rashidzulkifli.com Solicitors for the Defendants: Wan Guan Hui together with Tsu Jean Yinn Messrs. Caitlen Nicholas Cheoh & Partners A-3-15, Dataran Cascades No. 13A Jalan PJU5/1, Kota Damansara 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan Ref : 361/22/DJ/LIT/PPSB(563) Email : admin@cnclegal.my S/N 7EAJx/x1N02bNkFMNjInA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AA-B52NCC-34-04/2019

PLAINTIF SOON THYE HANG MARINE PRODUCTS SDN BHD DEFENDAN YOKE HWA TRADING

Permohonan leave untuk pengkomitan di bawah Aturan 52 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012sama ada Plaintif berjaya membuktikan wujudnya prima facie case of contempt

11/01/2024

Puan Nor Hasniah binti Ab Razak

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d1a0f400-76cc-4fb7-9ce8-72b9ba573966&Inline=true

11/01/2024 10:16:41 AA-B52NCC-34-04/2019 Kand. 75 S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N APSg0cx2t0c6HK5ulc5Zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1u\—as2ucc—34—u¢/2u19 Kand. 75 ,,;m m ,b'4l DALAM MAHKAMAH SESVEN DI IPOH DALAM NEGERI FERAK DARUL RIDZUAN. MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIEIL ND: AA-Bs2Ncc44.n4/2n19 ANTARA soon THVE HANG MARINE PRODUCTS sou BHD (No. SVARIKAT: 53331.0) PLAINYIF DAN VOKE HWA TRDING (No. SVARIKAT: IPo21Aa57.x) DEFENDAN Ausm PENGHAKIMAN [LAMPIRAN 59) sw Avswcxznacsuxsmcsia E‘ W; Sum INNDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm LATAR aELAKAuG KES [I] P\a\rmf telah menlaxlkan Nexis Permohonan EX-Pafle dl bawah Aluvan 52 Kaedah 3(2) Kaadah—Kaedah Mahkamah 2:112 (selepas ini msemn sebagai “KKM 2012-; man .1. bawah maang kuasa Mahkamah yang sedla ada [Lampvan 59] baharwa P ' it dibankan kebenavan umuk salu permtah sepam herikul 1 Bahawa Plamlif dxbenkan kebenaran unluk memohon kepada Mahkamah Vang Muha unluk mengeluarkan salu Fermahnnan Fengknmilan (emadap rakan kangsl Defend’-m yang bemama Cheang Chee Wm (Na KIF. 550312-335410) yang mempunyaw alamal terakhlr yang uuxevanui d: No 2, Ja\an sn Klebang 7, Eandav Sri Klebang, moo Chemnr, Ferak unluk mhukum peruara d1 alas Kelldakpaluhan Pangnaknman Persetujuan benarikh 11.012023, 2 Bahawa kns permahonan Am akan ananggung eleh rakan kangsw De{endan yang bernama Cheung Chee Wm (Mn K/P 560312-aa— 5410)‘ £137! a. LanHain Panmah dan/alau rem yang manggap um: dan saksama unluk dlbenkan oxen Mahkamah Vang Muha mi. [21 Pads 17 November 2023. Mahkamah Iru alas imbangan Kebarangkahan I.e\ah memben kepulusan dengan menalak permmanan Pliinllf d1 Lampirin 59 Tldak berpuas hall dengan kepanusan Mahkamah IN Afiswcxzmcwxsmnsla -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm anuyux yang mana VAA Hakim Anfin Zakana menyalakan bahawa ~ we) The safeguards m r 2121 sntafl Me annlrcatian m be supourled Dy a statement aescnomg amongsl others, we nsmon sought to be cammmed and me grounds on wmcn he rs .9//aged m be in Danlsmpl It must be supponoa by an amaswz venlymg ms facts ralred on m ma statement. I37] we wrslv to slats In clear (arm (ha! ms alleqgd ac! ofconrsmm must be adguarem descnfig gag “mg gmg [n mg [g mg gafifimsn flssll rne aecampunymq arrmwz rs only to vanly the ram mum In mar slatsmsnt /1 cannot add ram to u be sugfimenlsd or 9; red ny any Ilmhel arraayu at .2 /ate! Mm rm; alleged conremnar mu:-I at once be given my knawfsdge of what charys he rs iscmg so as In enable mm to meet me charva ms must be dons wmun the lam wa/rs orme slslemenl nsell ~ [penskanan dltambahl [21] Eehan pemuukxian umuk permahnnan pangkoman dx bawah Amran 52 Kaedah 3 (2) KKM 2012 adalan melampam karaguan munasabah (beyond Ieasonabie doubt) kerana .a belsxlat kuasnenayah Seklranw pemyalaan uaak dlpennclkan dan dlpenhalkan dengan mencukupi. maka we adalah mamadn falal kepada pevmohenan pengkomilin yang dibuat. Perkara Ini dinyalakan dalam kaa Mahkamah Tinggl Kuala Lumpur Stwalwgam a/\ s Fanmah a. 3 Ors y. Balaknshnan an s Penman s. 2 Ors [zoos] CLJU 222 yang mans VA Zmkem Maklnuddln (pada masa nu) nenan menyalakan bahawa — ‘The Rum Ana /aw Aflfllrcabls 4 mm 35/ grocssdrgg is a mmfnal or gum an'm.na/ gmcesdmg In me firs! mszsm, me first plamlrlfhas m move ma: he had complied mm s 1:; sm Afiswcxzmcawsmcsla -um smm ...m.mn be used m mm n. nnnmun mm: dun-mm y.. mum pm me simulated mm and procedures Nawng pnma Mal, men me my prammvnss to arm mar bollv me delendarvts are gumy 0! me anegarmns 0/ charge: made agamsl them The burden al gmal rs gmcll bsmgg m and this bunien is on the firs! p/arnnar, mm as tu me rules and plvoedures and as In ma gm/r auagaa Farrure ny the mar prarnn/no so pruve errner o/Ihe raqulrsmsnts rs «am za me firs! plainu/rs apfi/fcatfun - [penakanan dnambah] [221 Salslah nuanenn pernyataan yang dflaflkan pmak wamui an Lampirin an Mahkamah .n. menaapan bahawa mansa Ia) dan (b) Fenghakvman Psrsetujuan Ielsebut aualan kabur sebagalmana yang dmtuahkan pihak Defendan, 0\eh nu, pwhak P\a‘vmf Ie\ah gage! msmhuktxkan wugudnya pnma Iacie case ovoomsmpr melampauv keraguan munasabah 1231 Berkenaan persaawan mengensn pexakaanaan sscara pengknmnsn nendaklah memadi suacu remedx yang uenakmn Mahkamah mu (slah msrujuk kepada kes Mnhkamah 1'|ngg\ Shah Alam Lee Chang Yong v Tang wav Yea [20:51 1 LNS 1530. VA Fesurumaya Kenaknnan Hayalm Akmal Abdul Aziz lelah memuluskan hahawa apanua Ierdnpat remedi anamam bo\eh dxamhll SEVEN! pelaksanaan secara psngkamnan‘ remedu allamshf Ru nendaklah aianmu sepem berikul “[iii) Enclosun m (cammma: pmcudlrm) mu ma court may, on me apphcavon ofany party m any cause mmafler ar an its own mahon, make an alder av commmal /n Farm var (o 52 r 2 R5 2012) ms Couns’1uIvsd»c!tan :9 Issue an M191 for commimal rs denved mm ma Fsderal Canstrlurnon, mac 1:: and ma canna of mncazura An 1954 rm 91;, seclron 13 ms was gavel-mng pmcedurs In 11 syn APSwcxZIOc5HK5m:5Z§ -nan s.nn In-nhnv M“ be used m mm na nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm wa .nnm wrm aarnmmalpmceedlngs an as set out /n o 52 r 3 RC 2012 wivcn deals wnn nonlemplm oonner.-non mm bath own and mmmal pmossdlnvs pm An amer grmmmm: wm gm be made wfilg L19 9 Ivgr mug is avarvan/a Where 5 gggggm mum L; m Lam ggggg ggggmmm Io grvson maransmanve rnusmg taken “ [penekanan dwambah] [24] selanjuum dalam membuai kapuluaan, Mahknmah ini melihax kepada remedi allsmam iauu pmsidmg kehankrapan Dalam hal mi, rujukan dibual kepada saksyen 5 (1) (a) AKB Insowens: (Pindaan) 2020 [Akfa A1521] yang msna amaun hulang yang bobeh dmumaul oleh pempeusyen pemmtang danpada pengnmang melalui pmisyen kebankrapan Isiah dinawkkan daripada RM50 ribu kepada RM1u0 nbu Memandangkan jumlah wing yang dwpersatwul unluk mbayar oleh Defendan kepada Plain!!! sabanyak RM1IO‘flUOU0 di da\am Penghakiman Persenuuan Iersebul, F\amm holen mengambil Imdakin kebankrapan lemidap rakan kongsx Defendan yang bemama Cheung dan rakan knngsx Defendan yang lam Tambahan lagi. pihak P\a\mi1 fidak manyalakan dalam Lampiran ac ssma ildi remedx altemalii yang antara lam‘ adalah pmsldmg kebankrapan, proaiding gamwsw nan wm penynaan dan penjuauln telah dwambil sebemrn Lampwran 59 mfallkan SeIe\ah Penghakxman Fersahuuan diperolah pads 11 1 2023‘ plhak P\a1nmIe\ah menvankan Lampiran 59 pads 5.42023. [25] Berdasarkan kspada nasrnas undang di perenggan 21 den 2: alas, Mahkamah zm Derpandangan bahawa memandangkin Waxnui Ielah gsgal mamhuklikan wujudnya gnma ram case 0! contempt dan palaksanaan 12 sw APSwcxZIOc5HK5m:5Z§ -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm sears pengkomnan hendaklah menjadl suatu remedv yang terakmr (remedy of Vast resan), permchonan Plainm dx Lampirarl 59 adalah walar max dubenarkan KESIMFULAN [251 Bardasarkan kepeda masanalasan yang dwtarakan :1. alas, Mahkamah Inv le\ah mengambil kira kesemua kenas kausa berkailan, hujahan bsrlulls din hmahan ba\as pmak-pmak unluk memberikan perinlah yang umyanakan dw perenggan 2 d\ 3135 /u 4&1; NOR HASNIAH awn AB mm Hakwm Mahkamah Sasyen Ipch Eenankn 11 Januan 2024 Bag: plhak Flainkw Pn Elaine Foong Souk van Peguambela flan Peguamcara Tetuan Choang Meng S19 5. Law Bag: pmak Delendan En Wncent any Lwang Jwe Peguambexa dan Peguameara Tatusn Tan Nanzsn & Assnmates IN Afiswcxzmcwxsmnsla -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm im, Pramnr celan mammlkan rayuan vme Nmls Rayuan benarlkh 20 Novembar 2023 ke Mahkamah Tmggi [Lammran 1:11 [31 Eagi permnhonan mi, Mahkamah im (elah menehh kenis-keflas kausa yang benkut (5) Wm Saman henafikh 29.4 2019 [Lammran 1] dan Pemyalaan Tumulan benankh 25 4 2019[Lamp1ran 2]; 10; Memorandum Kehadlnan Defendan Derlankh 2e 0 2020 [Lampvan 5], 10) Pemyataan Pembevaan nmenaan benankh 10 5 2020 [Lamplran 291, 1.1) Jawapan kepeda Pembekaan berlarikh 4.6.2021 [Lampiran 321, (9; Penghakiman Persetujuan nenankn 11.01 2025 [Lampman 501, (1) Lamplran 59. (g) Afldawt Sckongsn Chuah Seong Kak yang diikrarkan pads 5.4 202:1 [Lampiran 50]. my Femyataan Menurul Aluran 52 Kaeaan 3 KKM 2012 [Lamplran 61], (1) Afidswl Snkungan [Jawapan] Chenng Cnee wu. yang dukrarkan pad: 15 5 2DZ3[Lamp1ran 541; flan up Afdavrt Ealasan Chuah Seung Kok yang dnkrarkan pada 20 5 2023 [Lampiran 55]. sw APSwcxZIOc5HK5m:5Z§ mm 5.11.1 In-nhnv WW he .15.. 1. mm 1.. 01111.11-y mm; dun-mm VII .mm mm RINGKASAN FAKIA KES Fakla kes sehagairnana Lampwan 2 admah sepem berikuz. [4] Hsvrml adalah sehuah syankan yang mpemadankan an bawah Akta syarikax 2018 [Akta 777] dan mempunyal alamat pemnagaan d\ 4351, Jalan Bijeh fiman, Taman Cherry, 30000 Ipoh, Perak [5] Defendan adalah ssbush syarikac yang mpemadankan dx bawah Akta 777 dan mempunyai alamax pemlagaan dl No 24, Lumng Kledang utara :5. Tarnan Gamelan Menglembu. 31450 Vpoh‘ Ferak [en Tunlulan Plainlfl Kemadap Defendan adalah unluk barang»barang yang auuax kepada naqanaan dan yang ainamaraaran kepada Defendan alas perminlaan Dsfendan sebanyak RM5I3,315.42 yang masuh (emu!/any oleh Defendan kepada F\ammf [71 Plannm telah bebetapa kah menunml jumlah yang ferhutang aanpana Defendan sendin din be\ah menghanbr mms mmman benankh 1 22019 dan azzme yang dlkeluarkan uleh peguamcara Tevluan cmmng Meng Sze 5 Law yang mana Defendan mxananuak. jumrah Ierhulang dalam Iempoh 14 Man dan lankh penenmain nous tumulan IN. [5] Wilaupun Plalnml lelah beberapa kall memmza dan menumnl Jumlah «emuzang «amanm, netanuan man gagan, enggan flan/alau abai umuk membaysr jumlah eemuxang carsebm a IN Avswcxzmcwxsmasla -ma Sum In-nhnv M“ be .75.. a mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum Wm [9] Kalakuan pmak Dslendan Iakah menyababkan Wamtii merrgsflaml ketugxan dan kerosakan. [10] Pwntrflelilh menfailkan mdakan Ini m Mahkamah bagi menumul — (5) Wang larhutang sewmlah RM5I3,3I5 42‘ (n) Faedah atas wmlah F{M5I:,31§42 paua kadar 5% semun daripada lankh wm saman semngga cam penghakiman‘ (c) Faedah ks am jumlsh RM513,315.42 paaa kadar 5% setahun danpadi Iankh penglla an serungga lankn penyelesaian sepenuhnya‘ (d) vuran psguam pada kadar peguamcara-anakguam sejumlah RMSOJIOOOO. (3) Kos,dan (1) Rem-relil Iain yang dlbenavkan anau manggap sesum o\eh Mahkamah. PERMOHONAN PLAIu1 F [11] Lampvan 59 mmasuxkan Plairml unluk penntah-penntah sebagaxmana an perenggan 1 an alas. [12] Alasan-a\asan permehonan ada\ah sepem berikul: 1 Bahawa pads 11012023. salu Penghaklman Fefsemjuan bermnkh 11 01 2022 (selspas ml dlsebut sebagaw ‘Pengha a IN Afiswcxzmcwxsmnsla -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Ferss1u]uan') Ie\ah dvekodkan ai hadapan Mahkamah Vang Muha ml yang mania amara Iain, sepem yang uenkm a Rakan kongsi neaanaan, Checng Chee Wm (No. K/P: B60812-38-5410) (selepas mi disebut sebagai “Cheong"j hendabdah memhayar kepada P\ainIr1 Jumlah wsng sabenyak RM11o,uuooc sebagav suatu penyelesawan penun dan muklamad bagi (umulan Flainm cemaaap Chenrvg Ghee Wm tanpa sebaring pengakuan lwab D Amaun dwpersemjm hendaklah dibawl oleh Defendan kepada Plain!!! dengan dua (2; ansuran bulanan yang sama sehanyak RM55,000 on salvap bman pads 15 hanbulan hap- uap bulan secari benerusan bermula danpada 15 Februan 2023 darn ianya hendaldah amayar secara dua ksepmg ask lankh hidapsn (pasmanea cheque) diserahkan kapada peguamcara Plalnlwl secara sena-mena; c Kosundakan zmanggung oxen pmak masmg-masmg PEflGlNDORSAN MENURUT Amnuu 4; MEDAH 1 KAEDAH-KAEDAfl MAHKAIMH 2011 Jika‘ Kamu‘ Checng Chea Wm (No K/P’ asua12—:ss-5410) yang dlnamakan da\sm nan vn hdak memaxum dan/atau gagal memamm penman Km, kamu bo\eh mkenakan pmses pelsksanaan bagx maksud memaksa Kamu mematuhunya IN Afiswcxznocsuxsmnsla -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm 2 Walau bagiimanspun, rakan Knngsu Defendan yang bemama Cheong Ghee Wu: (Na KIP asua12—3a~541n) Ie\ah gagil danlatau enggan unluk memaluhl Penghakmrlan Perselujuan (ersehut semngga kw flan masm benerusan mengmgkan Penghaklman Ferselujuan tersebul. HUJAHAN PIHAK-PIHAK [13] mamxii telah menghnqahkan bahawn pmaknya me\a\uv psguamcara ta\ah menyetahkan Penghakxmin Perseltuuan tersebul kepads Cheung pada 14 2 2112: mm memmla Cheong memanum Penghakuman Perseluwan tarssbul namun sehlngga kinl bellau masm gagal, mgkar danlatau abal berbuat seaemman Fmak Walrmftelah memben mesa selama 3 man dan (arikh Penghaklrnan Ferselujuan Ielsebut sebelum menvaukan Lampwran 59 [141 Pihak Pnamm manghwahkan juga bahawa lerma-Velma Penghakiman Persemiuan Iersebut adalah gelas dan mudah dwahirm. Klausa 13) Pengnammnn Fersetuman tersebul mengganskan ;um\ah yang hams mbayar obh Cheong manakala Klausa my Fenghakmnan Psrsetujuan tersehul mengganskan iadual pembayaran yang jelas [15] Defendan pula panamanya menghujahkan banawa Lamplran 61 Iidak wauav dlbenarkan kersna pemyalaan yang diiailkan pmak F\am(i( an hawah Aluran 52 KKM 2012 nu cacan kerana lakes-vakta yang cmaxwa ada\ah sa\aI1 alau sllap (enoneous), bercanggsh womrazmury) dan kurang ram 5 IN Afiswcxznocsuxsmnsla -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Iementu Hack pamculars) Plalnfif lidak menyalakan dalam pernyalaan Ievsebul bagalmana, blla dan da\am keadaan mane (how, when and m what manner) Defendan le\ah gagal memaluhi Penghakiman Pelsetwuan Isrsebm Termaierma Penghakxman Persetujusn (ersebul adslsh Kabur kerana klausa (a) Penghaklman Fersetujuan tarsebut mengkehendakw Chaung se\aku rakan kongsl membayar kepada P\ainlr1 wang benumlah RM11D,0DO no manakala klausa my Fenghakiman persemuan lersabut pula mengkenenuam Defendan msmbayar kepada Puamm sebanyak dua kah ansuran bulanan hequmlah RM55,D00 no semp man mulal 15 2 2023 secara dua post-dazed cheques (1 51 Keduanya, Delendan menghwahkan bahawa dlsebabkan Lampu-an at ananxan (emadap Defendan darn bukannya Chaung selaku rakan knngsw make prlma facis case of conrsmp! udak dapat dmukukan cemadap Cnecng [171 Humuan Keuga Defendan ada\ah memandangkan prosmlng pengknmnan adalsh bersvfzi kuaswenayah (quasi-cnmmal), perimah mm pengkemnan akan dlbenarkan sebigal suanu remedw yang terakmr (vemedy oflast1esmI)apab\Ialiada Vagi ramam lam yang boleh dnambn Seklranya tmdakan pehiksanaan penghakiman mgm dmmhll FVHVIM ks ans Checng berkenaan Penghaklman Fersemjuan cevsem, Plainlfl mempunyal awematfl yang amara lam, ada\ah pmuing kebankrapan, pmsmmg garmsi dan wnl psnynaan dan peruualan. IN Afiswcxzmcwxsmnsla -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [16] Sebagaw nnukan, Aturan 52 Kaedah 3 KKM 2012 memperunmkkan bahawa » ‘ORDER 52 COMMITTAL Deiinttfun (0 52, r 1; 1 lnlms Order ‘Court’ means we Hlgh com, Sessions Court and MagrslIaIe5' court. '.ludge“ means a mgn Court Judge, seasmns com Judge ur Magrstrais Appnaanan to Court 10, 52. r. 3; 3 (1) Na appllcsnalv to a com for an Dnisr of commmzl against any person may he made unless leave to make such an applrcalton has been grarvtsd in accordance wnn this me. (2) An apmrcanan lot sucn leave must be made ex parts to me Court by .3 Ivonne ol apultcalfarv supported by a smemenl semng am me name and dsmnptiorl unna applicant, me name, uescnpnon and address ofme person saught m be cammrtled and mo grounds an which his conmmral rs sought, and By an amuam, to be man before me appncanon rs mada, vsnlymg ma famsle/fed on - [psnekanan ditambah] [19] Walaupun permohonan pengkomnan dvbuat secara m-pane dw hawah Ahuan 52 Kaedah 3 (2) KKM 2012. Mahkamah mu Ielah aw Afiswcxzlocauksmcsla -ma smn n-nhnrwm be used w mm In: nrW\ruU|Y mm. flan-mm VI] muNG wrm menggunakan bum bicaranya unmk mendengar permnhanan Plairml an Lamplran 59 secar-a opposed e><—pan9 bagx mensntukan sama aua wujudnya pnma fame case of cnnlempt O\eh nu, pmak Plaxmll dan Dsvfendan «em. menvankan hwahan berlulls dan balas maslngdnasmg sehagaxmana yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 13 hingga 17 di ates Pevkara betkenaan opposed sx-pans basis Ielah dlbmcangkan da\am kas Marmaman Tvnggi Kuala Lumpur Smohydm Corporanan (M) Sdn arm v KAJ Development Sdn EM [2023] cuu 232: seperll benkut: -134] Furthermore, m Dale‘ Onn Ah Baa, me r.1efsnds1ns' /and coun:a/ was given permission to address ms cam! on ms sx-pane apnl/canon as the com! ma referred 10 me abservulron by Msgalry J /11 Landon cur Agency ua V L56 [1570] 1 on 597 and was aune mew that. a/mougn me prsmmvs' application fnrlsave was made sx-pane. msra was nammg rnegularforths A1efeIvL1atrvs’counss/to be present m court where we dslsndsntx became aware ome eppucanon and :1 nscessaly. to 3551:! ms court /Icaflsd upon even m an ex-pane sppncanon (sum, at» 91). 135) /n ma presemapplrcanon. the names agleedtnatllve hearing ave/rel as proceeds an an agmsgg ax-gafls bays where m Prammr was allowed to me ms Wrllfen surumswn (end an " [penekanan mtamban] [20] sewanjmnya, adalah memam kehendak undang-undang as bawah Aluran 52 Kasdah 2 (2) KKM 2012 bahawa mmakan menghma yang dwdakwa (alleged act at oonlempl) hendaklah dipenncwkan dan dIpevIha\kan dengan mencukum. Da\am ha! nu, kee Mahkarnah Persekuluan Tan Sri Dalo'(|31) Rozah Ismau 2. Ors v Lim Pang Cheong 5. Drs [2012] 2 CLJ B49 sw Afiswcxzlocawsmcsla -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-02(A)-1297-07/2022

PERAYU AUGUSTINE A/L T.K. JAMES (LIQUIDATOR FOR BEGAN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD) RESPONDEN LIEW CHONG MIN

Dispositions made after presentation of winding-up petition-Whether bona fide-Knowledge of winding-up petition-Beneficial to general body of creditors-Good and honest intention-Sections 471 and 541 Companies Act 2016

11/01/2024

YA Datuk See Mee ChunKorumYA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji NawawiYA Datuk See Mee ChunYA Dato' Lim Chong Fong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d316814e-fa85-492d-b96c-176b0faff0b8&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(A)-1296-07/2022 ANTARA AUGUSTINE A/L T.K. JAMES (PELIKUIDASI BAGI BEGAN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD NO SYARIKAT: 199701009535 (425031-W) … PERAYU DAN 1. LIEW CHONG MIN (No. K/P: 690717-08-5517) 2. NG TUCK WENG (No. K/P: 600213-08-5693) 3. TAN KINV TAT … RESPONDEN- (Dahulunya Beramal Sebagai RESPONDEN Tetuan Kinv Law Office) (Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Dagang) Kes Pasca Penggulungan Guaman No.: WA-28PW-218-08/2021 (Nombor kes Asal Petisyen Penggulungan : WA-28NCC-660-10/2017) Antara Lim Wee Ngeh Painting Construction Sdn Bhd (No Syarikat: 672847-A) … Pempetisyen Dan 1. Liew Chong Min (No K/P: 690717-08-5517) 2. Ng Tuck Weng (No K/P: 600213-08-5693) 3. Tan Kinv Tat … Responden- (Dahulunya Beramal Sebagai Responden Tetuan Kinv Law Office) Dan Augustine A/L T.K James (Pelikuidasi Bagi Began Construction Sdn Bhd No Syarikat: 199701009535 (425031-W) … Pemohon 12/01/2024 14:45:37 W-02(A)-1297-07/2022 Kand. 48 S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Didengar Bersama dengan DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(A)-1297-07/2022 ANTARA AUGUSTINE A/L T.K. JAMES (PELIKUIDASI BAGI BEGAN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD NO SYARIKAT: 199701009535 (425031-W) … PERAYU DAN 1. LIEW CHONG MIN (No. K/P: 690717-08-5517) … RESPONDEN (Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Dagang) Kes Pasca Penggulungan Guaman No.: WA-28PW-352-12/2021 (Nombor kes Asal Petisyen Penggulungan : WA-28NCC-660-10/2017) Antara Lim Wee Ngeh Painting Construction Sdn Bhd (No Syarikat: 672847-A) … Pempetisyen Dan Began Construction Sdn Bhd (No Syarikat: 199701009535(425031-W) … Responden Dan Liew Chong Min (No K/P: 690717-08-5517) … Pemohon Dan Augustine A/L T.K James (Pelikuidasi Bagi Began Construction Sdn Bhd No Syarikat: 199701009535 (425031-W) … Responden) S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 CORAM AZIZAH BINTI HAJI NAWAWI, JCA SEE MEE CHUN, JCA LIM CHONG FONG, JCA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Introduction [1] There are 2 appeals, namely appeal 1296 and appeal 1297 being heard together. Parties have agreed that appeal 1296 be heard first and that its decision binds appeal 1297. [2] All references to enclosures are to appeal 1296 except where otherwise stated. Parties [3] The Appellant who is the Plaintiff in the High Court (HC) is the Liquidator of a wound-up company, Began Construction Sdn Bhd (the Company). The Appellant was appointed pursuant to a court order dated 11-11-2019 to replace the Official Receiver (OR). [4] The 1st and 2nd Respondents/Defendants were the directors and shareholders of the Company when the winding-up petition was presented. The 2nd Respondent was absent in the HC proceedings. The S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 3rd Respondent/Defendant is an advocate and solicitor who was practising under the name and style of The Law Chambers of Tan Kinv Tat (TKT). Background facts [5] The Appellant had filed a notice of motion (encl. 1) in the HC pursuant to sections 472 and 541 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) that the list of dispositions as set out in paragraph 1(a) to (o), paid to the creditors and to the 3rd Respondent, are void. The payments are as follows: a) a sum of RM100,036.00 of the Company's money to The Law Chambers of Tan Kinv Tat, Advocates & Solicitors, the Third Respondent on the 13.11.2017. b) a sum of RM5,000.00 of the Company's money to the The Law Chambers of Tan Kinv Tat, Advocates & Solicitors, the Third Respondent on the 24.11.2017. c) a sum of RM440,000.00 of the Company's money to SJEE Engineering Sdn Bhd on 31.10.2017. d) a sum of RM20,000 of the Company's money to Optad Marketing Sdn Bhd on the 31.10.2017. e) a sum of RM120,000.00 of the Company's money to QST Solutions Sdn Bhd on the 31.10.2017. f) a sum of RM90,000.00 of the Company's money to Perkasa Solaris Sdn Bhd on the 13.11.2017. g) a sum of RM68,419.30 of the Company's money to Soon Hin Hardware Sdn Bhd on the 13.11.2017. S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 h) a sum of RM66,203.98 of the Company's money to Mega Tyre & Car Services on the 13.11.2017. i) a sum of RM50,000.00 of the Company's money to Ng Sin Yee on the 24.11.2017. j) a sum of RM67,331.10 of the Company's money to Messrs. Ferida, Hassan, Low & Ng on the 24.11.2017. k) a sum of RM100,000.00 of the Company's money to Ng Chee Meng on the 24.11.2017. l) a sum of RM40,000.00 of the Company's money to Yik Seong Trading Sdn Bhd on the 24.11.2017. m) a sum of RM170,000.00 of the Company's money to Public Bank Berhad on the 24.11.2017. n) a sum of RM49,800.00 of the Company's money to Ng Chee Siong on the 24.11.2017. o) a sum of RM250,000.00 of the Company's money to Perkasa Solaris Sdn Bhd on the 13.11.2017. [6] In paragraph 2, an order was sought that the Respondents be jointly and severally liable to pay the Company and/or the Liquidator the above sums of RM1,531,754.38 as listed in paragraph 1(c) to (o). Paragraph 3 next sought an order that the 3rd Respondent returns and/or pays the Company and/or the Liquidator the sum of RM105,036.00 as listed in paragraph 1(a) and (b). S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [7] The principal grounds advanced were that all the above dispositions as listed in paragraph 1(a) to (o) of encl. 1 are void as they were made after the presentation of the winding-up petition and/or also amounts to undue preference over the Company’s creditors. [8] Pursuant to an adjudication decision dated 21-8-2017, the Company was awarded a sum of RM1,778,985.96 (award sum). The 3rd Respondent’s firm who had acted for the Company, was instructed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to receive the award sum. From this award sum, the sum of RM1,636,790.38 was paid out by the 3rd Respondent on the instructions of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. [9] The winding-up petition against the Company was presented on 5- 10-2017 and the Company was wound-up on 8-12-2017. [10] The fact that the dispositions were made after the presentation of the winding-up petition and before the winding-up order are not disputed. As a matter of fact, the dispositions were made from 31-10-2017 to 24- 11-2017. [11] At the time of the filing of encl. 1 on 2-8-2021 by the Appellant, no validation order had been obtained in respect of the dispositions made. [12] The Appellant’s motion was dismissed by the HC on 13-6-2022 leading to this appeal. [13] For completeness, it has to be mentioned that the other appeal 1297 relates to a notice of motion dated 3-12-2021 by the 1st Respondent as S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the Plaintiff to validate the dispositions made, pursuant to section 472 CA 2016. That motion was allowed by the HC, also on 13-6-2022. Decision in the HC [14] The grounds of judgment (GOJ) of the HC Judge (HCJ) are to be found in encl. 56/14-50. The GOJ dealt with both the Liquidator’s motion to void the dispositions and the 1st Respondent as the Plaintiff’s motion for validation. That GOJ also dealt with dispositions made to another legal firm, referred to by its acronym of W&T. [15] In paragraph 27 of the GOJ, the HCJ stated that it is trite that any disposition of the Company’s property made after the commencement of winding-up shall be void and the Company cannot dispose of its property in whatever form and by whatever means. This was after the relevant sections 472(1) and 541 CA 2016 and the authority of Azabar Holdings Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation) v Kumarappan @ Thannirmalai a/ KM Palaniappan [2021] 3 MLJ 448 had been considered. [16] As against the 2nd Respondent, it was stated that as he had not replied to the assertions made by the Appellant, he would be deemed to have admitted to such assertions. However, the application of the Ng Hee Thoong principle would be subject to the Court’s decision on the 1st Respondent’s liability. Refer to paragraphs 28 and 29 of GOJ. [17] As against the 1st Respondent, the HCJ found he had no knowledge of the winding-up petition. It was held that the 1st Respondent only knew of the winding-up order after he received the notice to attend the first meeting of the creditors and contributories on 19-12-2017. The 1st S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Respondent also had no involvement in the winding-up petition as the winding-up order was entered in the absence of the Company. [18] The HCJ then stated as follows: “38. As this Court had made a finding that Liew as well as W&T had no knowledge of the Petition, and as the monies were due and owing at the material times to the said creditors of the Company; it is only to be expected that the dispositions were in the course of the Company's ordinary trade and done in good faith ie, bona fide. 39. From this I hold that the said dispositions were made to have benefitted the Company's general body of creditors. Authority for this can be found in the case of BSN Commercial Bank (M) Berhad v. River View Properties and anor action [1996] 1 LNS 63; [1996] 4 MLRH 485 which has held that: "[17] Dispositions are said to be void under s. 223 of the Companies Act 1965 'unless the Court otherwise orders'. [18] Thus, each case must be approached and dealt with on its own facts and circumstances. No two cases are the same. It revolves on the good faith and honesty of the personalities, and it is here that the judge's common sense opinion of what is just and fair prevails: Re Steane's (Bournemouth) Ltd [1950] 1 All ER 21 at p 25; Re J Leslie Engineers Co Ltd (In liquidation) [1976] 1 WLR 292 at p 304 laid down the now classic principle that in deciding the existence of good faith and honest intention, the absence of knowledge by the transferee of the winding-up petition was a very powerful factor in favour of validation. Incidentally, it is pertinent to note that in Re Gray's Inn Construction Co Ltd, it was held that the court should not validate a transaction if its effect was to pay off a creditor in full at the expense of the general creditors. Mr Wong Kim Fatt, at the Bar, informed this court that River View had no creditors, and consequently, he submitted that this court should validate the release of S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 the fixed deposits to the current account of River View. It is my judgment that the court will always have regard as to whether the disposition was made bona fide in the course of the company's current trade, and if not validated, the trade of the company would be paralysed without any advantage as envisaged in Re Clifton Place Garage Ltd [1970] Ch 477 (CA) (emphasis mine)." 40. … I also find that there is no evidence before this Court which proves that the said payments made were not based on the good and honest intention of either Liew and/or W & T and as such I do hold that such payments are bona fide.” [19] The HCJ had also referred to the Federal Court case of Wong Wee Kheong & Anor v Daya Bersama Shd Bhd & Other Appeals [2013] 3 CLJ 969 on the principles of validation. [20] The decision of the HCJ meant that the dispositions, including that to the 3rd Respondent, were not rendered void. Submissions of the Appellant [21] The Appellant had submitted that the 1st Respondent had knowledge of the presentation of the winding-up petition based on its fresh evidence showing the letter of service of the winding-up petition, and the sealed judgment, both to the registered and business address. A director is the alter ego of a company and section 213(1) CA 2016 spells out the duties and responsibilities of directors. S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [22] The 3rd Respondent too had knowledge and reference was made to the case of Zulpadli & Edham v Inai Offshore & Marine Engineering Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) [2011] 4 MLJ 161. [23] The dispositions were not beneficial to the general body of creditors or bona fide where they were to the 1st Respondent’s siblings and own companies and had nothing to do with the Company’s current trade. [24] Contrary to the HCJ’s finding that the Appellant had not identified any creditors that would have been prejudiced, the Appellant submitted it had provided a list of creditors who had submitted their proof of debt (POD) with the OR. Submissions of the 1st Respondent [25] The 1st Respondent submitted that the HCJ had in paragraph 34.1 of the GOJ held that the creditors were indeed authentic creditors of the Company. The 1st Respondent had no knowledge of the winding-up petition. The letters of service cannot be regarded as the 1st Respondent having actual or personal knowledge and such service is only a formal requirement to move the winding-up proceedings along. As the 1st Respondent had no knowledge of the winding-up petition, the dispositions are deemed to have benefitted the Company’s general body of creditors. With regard to the dispositions being made to persons connected to the 1st Respondent, this does not demonstrate fraudulent trading. Further it is settled law that a company is separate from its directors and shareholders. There was also no evidence of any creditor being prejudiced. S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Submissions of the 3rd Respondent [26] For the 3rd Respondent, it was submitted that neither the 3rd Respondent nor TKT was involved in the winding-up petition or the subsequent proceedings; the instruction letters were issued and the dispositions made before the Company was wound-up; and there could be no cause of action under section 541 CA 2016. Our decision [27] In this appeal, the Appellant is not proceeding against the disposition of RM20,000.00 made to Optad Marketing Sdn Bhd (Optad) and RM120,000.00 made to QST Solutions Sdn Bhd (QST). These are in respect of paragraph 1(d) and (e) of encl. 1. [28] This leaves a balance sum of RM1,496,730.38 of which RM1,391,754.38 was made to various third parties and RM105,036.00 was made to the 3rd Respondent. The law [29] As the Appellant’s motion was premised on sections 471 and 541 of CA 2016, we set out the relevant provisions as follows: “Avoidance of dispositions of property or certain attachment, etc. 472. (1) Any disposition of the property of the company, other than an exempt disposition, including any transfer of shares or alteration in the status of the S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 members of the company made after the presentation of the winding up petition shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be void. … Power of Court to assess damages against delinquent officers, etc. 541. (1) If in the course of winding up it appears that- (a) any person who has taken part in the formation or promotion of the company; or (b) any past or present liquidator or officer, has misapplied or retained or become liable or accountable for any money or property of the company or been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust or duty in relation to the company, the Court may, on the application of the liquidator or of any creditor or contributory examine into the conduct of that person, liquidator or officer and compel him to repay or restore the money or property or any part of the money with interest at such rate as the Court thinks just, or to contribute such sum to the assets of the company by way of compensation in respect of the misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust or duty as the Court thinks just.” [30] It is indeed a trite principle of law that the disposition of the Company’s property after the presentation of the winding-up petition on 5- 10-2017 shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be void. This is evident from a reading of section 471(1) CA 2016 itself. [31] We will only need to refer to two high authorities to drive home this principle. The 1st is the Supreme Court case of Lian Keow (In Liquidation) & Anor v Overseas Credit Finance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 2 MLJ 449 where this was stated at page 456: S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 “Before considering these rival submissions, I like to state that the corresponding section in the English Companies Act 1948 is section 227. In re Wiltshire Iron Company (1868) 3 Ch App 443, Lord Cairns L.J., speaking of the general purpose of section 153 (the forerunner of section 227) of the English Companies Act 1862, said at p. 446: The 153rd section no doubt provides that all dispositions of the property and effects of the company made between the commencement of the winding up (that is the presentation of the petition) and the order for winding up shall, unless the court otherwise orders, be void. This is a wholesome and necessary provision to prevent, during the period which must elapse before a petition can be heard, the improper alienation and dissipation of the property of a company in extremis. …” [32] This Court in Azabar Holdings, which was also referred to by the HC stated as follows at page 462: “[37] As for the effect and consequences of a contravention of s 223 of the CA 1695, we think that it is highly relevant to refer to In re AI Levy (Holdings) Ltd [1964] Ch 19 where Buckley J (an obvious authority in company law jurisprudence) examined the equivalent section under English company law and said: It appears to me that the object of the section is to protect the interests of the creditors from the possibly unfortunate results which would ensue from the presentation of a petition, and to protect their interests as much during the period while the petition was pending as after an order has been made on it. What the section provides in its present terms is that any disposition of the property of the company made after the commencement of the winding up shall be void in the winding up of the company unless the court otherwise orders; that is to say, if and when the company comes to be put into liquidation the transaction is to be as if it had never taken place. (Emphasis added.)” S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [33] However, this does not end the matter as it has also been said that the general rule in what used to be section 223 of Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965), which is now section 471 CA 2016 does not rule out bona fide transactions. That much is clear from the Federal Court case of Wong Wee Kheong & Anor v Daya Bersama Shd Bhd & Other Appeals [2013] 3 CLJ 969 at pages 981-982 as follows: “[12] … It is true that ordinarily since the respondent company had been wound up on 24 August 2000, a disposition of the company's property after the commencement of the winding up, which was on 31 May 2000 (filing of the petition) would be void. However based on the peculiar set of facts of the case, it is our considered view that the proviso in s. 223 of the Act is still operative in relation to the transactions which took place and the court has the power and jurisdiction to declare the transactions as valid. [13] It is to be noted that s. 223 of the Act makes no mention as to time. It is our view validation can be made by the court at any time. We are in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that to insist that the purchasers must have applied for a validation after the company was wound up, there must be knowledge. Here the purchasers had no knowledge at all of the winding up order at the material time. It is also noted that the Act does not prescribe as to how the discretion under s. 223 of the Act is to be exercised. However there are case laws that have distilled the principles involved in validating transactions after the commencement of winding up, and even after a winding order has been granted based on two broad considerations: (a) if the transaction(s) are beneficial to the general body of creditors; or (b) if it was just and fair to allow the transaction(s) with particular regard to the good and honest intention of the persons concerned. S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [14] The general rule in s. 223 of the Act is that it does not shut out bona fide transactions. In Lian Keow Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Anor v. Overseas Credit Finance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 1 LNS 44; [1988] 2 MLJ 449, Seah, SCJ made reference to a passage by Vaisey J in Re Steane's (Bournemouth) Ltd [1950] 1 All ER 21 which states: that each case must be dealt with on its own facts and particular circumstances (special regard being had to the question of the good faith and honest intention of the persons concerned), and that the court is free to act according to the judge's opinion of what would be just and fair in each case. The discretion is an unfettered one”. (Emphasis added) [34] From the above, bona fide transactions are those transactions which the Court finds to fall within either of the broad considerations laid down. [35] It is to be noted that in Wong Wee Kheong, there was an absence of knowledge of the winding-up petition. As against the 1st Respondent [36] As alluded earlier, the HC found that the 1st Respondent had no knowledge of the winding-up petition and that the 1st Respondent only knew of the winding-up order after he received the notice to attend the first meeting of the creditors and contributories on 19-12-2017. It was then said it is only to be expected that the dispositions were in the course of S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 the Company’s ordinary trade and done in good faith i.e. bona fide and the dispositions had benefitted the Company’s general body of creditors. i. Knowledge [37] On the issue of knowledge, the Appellant had on 11-1-2023 obtained an order from this Court to admit fresh evidence (encl.41/1-3) as per the letter of service dated 10-10-2017 of the winding-up petition and the letter of service dated 13-12-2017 of the sealed winding-up order. These letters of service can be found in encl. 39/4-9. A perusal of the letters would show they had been served on the registered address at Jalan Kuchai Lama and the business address of the Company. Refer to exhibit “AJ-6” to the affidavit in support of the fresh evidence application, to show the SSM search (encl. 9/95). [38] We find that the service of the winding-up petition was in accordance with Rule 25(1) Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 (1972 Rules) where such petition shall be served at the registered office of the Company. The aforesaid rule provides as follows: “25. Service of petition (1) Every petition shall, unless presented by the company, be served upon the company at the registered office of the company, and if there is no registered office, then at the principal or last known principal place of business of the company, if can be found, by leaving a copy with any member, officer, or servant of the company there, or in case no such member, officer, or servant can be found there, then by leaving a copy at the registered office or principal place of business, …” S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [39] Hence, it follows that the 1st Respondent, being the director of the Company would have knowledge of the winding-petition. As was said in Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Adorna RMIT Sdn Bhd & Ors [2003] 4 MLJ 729 at page 730: “… Directors are the alter ego of a company. It is therefore not appropriate for a director to escape culpability by pleading that he is a sleeping partner or director, or a silent director or a non-active director.” [40] In Ravichanthiran a/l Ganesan v Percetakan Wawasan Maju Sdn Bhd & Ors [2008] 8 MLJ 450 it was said at page 457: “[10] Even, assuming that the plaintiff is a non-executive director, nevertheless he is still a director in the eyes of the law and his roles and duties are governed by the CA in particular, s 132. Furthermore a non- executive director is entrusted to look after the affairs of the company and to keep a close watch on the company's managers and other directors in order to safeguard the investment of shareholders. …” … [12] It is trite law that the affairs of the company, as a separate legal entity, are managed by the directors of the company. …” (Emphasis added) [41] In essence, the Company acts through its director and the affairs of the Company has to by necessity be managed by the directors. It does not lie on the 1st Respondent to escape liability by saying, as he did, that he was the muscles behind the Company, managing projects and work sites with the 2nd Respondent being the brains, managing the affairs of the S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Company. When the winding-up petition was served at the registered office of the Company, that sets the winding up proceedings on course. The 1st Respondent too cannot evade liability by saying that such service does not equate to personal knowledge as that is not what the law in the form of Rule 25(1) 1972 Rules says. The law only requires service on the registered address of the Company. [42] In this regard, section 213(1) CA 2016 spells out in no uncertain terms the duties and responsibilities of company directors. It provides as follows: “Duties and responsibilities of directors 213. (1) A director of a company shall at all times exercise his powers in accordance with this Act, for a proper purpose and in good faith in the best interest of the company.” [43] We therefore find that the 1st Respondent had knowledge of the winding-up petition. [44] The HCJ had in paragraph 38 stated that as the 1st Respondent had no knowledge of the winding-up petition it is only to be expected that the dispositions were in the course of the Company’s ordinary trade and in good faith. This part of the finding cannot possibly stand where we have found that indeed the 1st Respondent had such knowledge. [45] We thus find the dispositions made after the presentation of the winding-up petition are void. We now consider whether the transactions are bona fide as per the principles identified in Wong Wee Kheong. S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 ii. Principles identified in Wong Wee Kheong [46] To recap, the principles identified in Wong Wee Kheong at page 982 were: (a) if the transaction(s) are beneficial to the general body of creditors; or (b) if it was just and fair to allow the transaction(s) with particular regard to the good and honest intention of the persons concerned. iii. Beneficial to the general body of creditors [47] We deal with the dispositions to the 3rd party creditors other than to the 3rd Respondent. Apart from the dispositions listed in paragraph 1(g) of encl. 1 to Soon Hin Hardware Sdn Bhd, paragraph 1(j) to Messrs Ferida, Hassan, Low & Ng and paragraph 1(m) to Public Bank Berhad, we find that the rest of the dispositions were in the form of repayment of loans to companies connected to the 1st Respondent or to a sibling, and without documents evidencing such loans. [48] The averments in the Appellant’s affidavit in reply show the following: a. Liew Yann Min, a director and shareholder of SJEE Engineering Sdn Bhd is the elder brother of the 1st Respondent; b. The shareholders and directors of Perkasa Solaris Sdn Bhd are the 1st and 2nd Respondents; S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 c. Liew Yee Min, the proprietor of Mega Tyres and Car Services, is the 1st Respondent’s sibling; and d. There are no documents to prove the loans given. [49] Refer to paragraphs 10.2, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.9, 10.10 and 10.12 of the Appellant’s affidavit in reply (encl. 4/38-45). [50] The 1st Respondent claimed to be able to produce bank statements and cash book statements to support the loans given to it. We refer for instance, to encl. 6/7-8, which is the document to support a loan given by Ng Sin Yee where the bank statement purports to show an entry of RM50,000.00 and the cash book statement records it accordingly. [51] However, we agree with the Appellant that these and the other documents are internal documents without any audited documents in support and are thus suspect. Further, as per paragraph 5 of the Appellant’s affidavit in support (encl. 4/7): “5. The Liquidator had sent notices to the Directors and Secretary of the Company requesting them to submit a Statement of Affairs and surrender all books and records but was not avail as of to date the Directors have failed, neglected, and refused to do the same.” [52] Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the dispositions to individuals, to siblings and to the Respondent’s own company can be deemed to have benefitted the Company’s general body of creditors where the dispositions are not bona fide and the documents in support of the loans given are suspect. S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [53] Surely it cannot be the case that paying a loan without proper documentation is treated to be in the course of the Company’s ordinary trade or for that matter paying to a company where the 1st Respondent is a director and shareholder along with the 2nd Respondent. [54] It was also held by the HCJ that the Appellant had not identified any creditors of the Company being prejudiced which meant there was no evidence of undue preference. We find this to be incorrect as the Appellant had provided a list of creditors as in encl. 5/147-148 to appeal 1297. This was the proof of debt submitted by Insolvency Department to the Liquidator which showed an amount of RM12,029,520.98. These would be the creditors prejudiced by the dispositions made and it cannot be said that such dispositions are to the benefit of the general body of creditors. [55] The dispositions to Soon Hin Hardware Sdn Bhd, Messrs Ferida, Hassan, Low & Ng and Public Bank Berhad suffer the infirmity of being made after the presentation of the winding-up petition and not being beneficial to the general body of creditors. iv. Just and fair with particular regard to the good and honest intention of the persons concerned [56] In BSN Commercial Bank (M) Bhd v River View Properties Sdn and another action [1996] 1 MLJ 872, the following was stated at page 882: “Dispositions are said to be void under s 223 of the Companies Act 1965 ‘unless the Court otherwise orders’. Thus, each case must be approached and dealt S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 with on its own facts and circumstances. No two cases are the same. It revolves on the good faith and honesty of the personalities, and it is here that the judge's commonsense opinion of what is just and fair prevails: Re Steane's (Bournemouth) Ltd [1950] 1 All ER 21 at p 25; Re J Leslie Engineers Co Ltd (In liquidation) [1976] 1 WLR 292 at p 304 laid down the now classic principle that in deciding the existence of good faith and honest intention, the absence of knowledge by the transferee of the winding-up petition was a very powerful factor in favour of validation. Incidentally, it is pertinent to note that in Re Gray's Inn Construction Co Ltd, it was held that the court should not validate a transaction if its effect was to pay off a creditor in full at the expense of the general creditors.” (Emphasis added) [57] Here, the knowledge of the 1st Respondent of the winding-up petition is a factor to show the absence of a good and honest intention. As against the 2nd Respondent [58] We deal next with the 2nd Respondent who was absent in the HC proceedings and this appeal. The Appellant has sought to make him jointly and severally liable with the other Respondents. We agree with the HCJ that as the 2nd Respondent had not replied to the assertions made by the Appellant, he would be deemed to have admitted to such assertions and that the application of the Ng Hee Thoong principle would be subject to the Court’s decision on the 1st Respondent’s liability. The effect is that if the 1st Respondent is liable, the 2nd Respondent is equally liable. S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 As against the 3rd Respondent [59] The firm of TKT had represented the Company in the adjudication proceedings and was instructed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to receive the award sum on behalf of the Company. [60] Then came the letters of instruction (Instructions) from the Company signed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to make the payments to various third parties, including the 3rd Respondent. These were duly done. The Instructions are dated between 27-10-2017 to 23-11-2017 and can be seen in encl. 4/88-128 together with the payment made. The fact of their issuance is not disputed. The full particulars of the dispositions correspond with the particulars listed in paragraphs 1(a) to (o) of encl. 1. [61] The Instructions to pay the 3rd Respondent and the payment, in encl. 4/98, 99, 126 and 127 are appended as follows: This space is intentionally left blank S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [62] As the other Instructions are too numerous, we will append the first such Instruction given and the payment made, as in encl. 4/88-89: S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [63] The above will thus show the 3rd Respondent received instructions from the Company signed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to pay out, and these were duly acted upon. [64] Insofar as knowledge of the winding-up petition is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the 3rd Respondent did not have any such knowledge. We say so because the 3rd Respondent and/or TKT was only involved in the adjudication proceedings and was never involved in the winding-up petition and its related proceedings. There was no evidence that the existence of the winding-up petition was made known to the 3rd Respondent. Eventually, by the time of winding-up, TKT had already been discharged by the Company. [65] Liability on paying out the dispositions cannot possibly attach on the 3rd Respondent where he and/or TKT acted on the Instructions and had no knowledge of the winding-up petition. [66] In addition, we find that the Appellant has no cause of action against the 3rd Respondent under section 541 CA 2016 which deals with inter alia the action of an “officer”. An officer is defined in section 2 as follows: “… “officer”, in relation to a corporation, includes- (a) any director, secretary or employee of the corporation; (b) a receiver and manager of any part of the undertaking of the corporation appointed under a power of contained in any instrument; and (c) any liquidator of a company appointed in a voluntary winding up, …” S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [67] From the above, it is clear that the 3rd Respondent is not an officer within the interpretation in section 2 and that section 541 read with section 2 does not attach liability against the 3rd Respondent. [68] The above was also the finding of the HCJ and the Appellant counsel has stated it is not appealing against this part of the decision but that the payments were made to the 3rd Respondent. [69] Nevertheless, it is only that the 3rd Respondent is not personally liable for the dispositions made to itself and the other third parties. The dispositions are still void for breach of section 471(1) CA 2016. [70] We were referred to Zulpadli & Edham which dealt with payments made to the appellant firm of solicitors after the presentation of a winding- up petition. This Court found that a charging order under section 123 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 was out of the question (paragraph 20). This Court then said only a validation order was doable as follows at page 171: “[21] On the facts of the present case, a validation order under s 223 was the only doable option. But there was no application from the appellant for such an order. Winding up had commenced against Inai on 29 June 2009, that is, at the time of the presentation of the petition of winding up (see s 219(2) of the Companies Act 1965). Without an order of validation, that remittance of RM1,400,000 to the appellant on 19 August 2009, which was clearly a disposition of the property of Inai after commencement of winding up, was void (see Lian Keow Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) & Anor v Overseas Credit Finance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 2 MLJ 449; Kimoyama Elektrik (M) Sdn Bhd v Metrobilt Construction Sdn Bhd [1990] 3 MLJ 309; Re Gray's Inn Construction Co Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 814); and In re Ashmark Limited (in liquidation) 2 IR 10, amongst S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 a host of authorities on s 223 or equipollent provision). 'The disposition rendered void is void at the time it takes place' (see McPherson, The Law of Company Liquidation, (4th Ed) at p 222). [22] Without a charging order or an order of validation, the entire remittance to the appellant was void. The entire remittance must be returned to Inai.” [71] We note that the appellant there pitched its case on the basis of a lien held over the payment. The facts are also different where here the 3rd Respondent paid out based on the clear terms of the Instructions issued by the Company and without knowledge of the winding-up petition. Conclusion i. Appeal 1296 [72] For the above reasons, we allow appeal 1296 against the 1st Respondent as follows: i. order in terms of encl. 1, paragraph 1, that the disposition of RM1,496,730.38 is void, other than paragraph 1(d) and (e) on the disposition of RM20,000.00 made to Optad and RM120,000.00 made to QST; and ii. order in terms of encl. 1, paragraph 2, against the 1st and 2nd Respondent only for the amounts listed in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) and (f) to (o). [73] We dismiss the appeal against the 3rd Respondent. S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [74] The decision of the HC is set aside to the extent as above. [75] On costs, we award RM10,000.00 to the Appellant to be borne by the 1st Respondent and RM10,000,00 to the 3rd Respondent to be borne by the Appellant. All costs are subject to allocatur. ii. Appeal 1297 [76] As parties have agreed that the outcome of appeal 1296 binds appeal 1297, we allow appeal 1297 other than paragraph 2(d) and (e) of encl. 1, on the disposition of RM20,000.00 made to Optad and RM120,000.00 made to QST. The decision of the HC is set aside to the extent as above. We make no order as to costs. (SEE MEE CHUN) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Dated: 12-1-2024 Appeal 1296 Counsel for the Appellant: Segaran Mathavan (Mohd Aiziezuddin Bin Suib with him) Messrs. S. Mathavan & Nur Hafizah Subang Jaya, Selangor S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Gow Jia Jian (Najwatul Aqilah Amli with him) Messrs. Gow Victor & Co. Puchong, Selangor Counsel for the 3rd Respondent: Yeoh Cho Kheong (Jeffrey Lee Hur and Lock Jun Qi with him) Messrs. Ranjit Singh & Yeoh Kuala Lumpur Appeal 1297 Counsel for the Appellant: Segaran Mathavan (Mohd Aiziezuddin Bin Suib with him) Messrs. S. Mathavan & Nur Hafizah Subang Jaya, Selangor Counsel for the Respondent: Gow Jia Jian (Najwatul Aqilah Amli with him) Messrs. Gow Victor & Co. Puchong, Selangor Cases referred to: Azabar Holdings Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation) v Kumarappan @ Thannirmalai a/ KM Palaniappan [2021] 3 MLJ 448 Wong Wee Kheong & Anor v Daya Bersama Shd Bhd & Other Appeals [2013] 3 CLJ 969 Zulpadli & Edham v Inai Offshore & Marine Engineering Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) [2011] 4 MLJ 161 Lian Keow (In Liquidation) & Anor v Overseas Credit Finance (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 2 MLJ 449 S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Adorna RMIT Sdn Bhd & Ors [2003] 4 MLJ 729 Ravichanthiran a/l Ganesan v Percetakan Wawasan Maju Sdn Bhd & Ors [2008] 8 MLJ 450 BSN Commercial Bank (M) Bhd v River View Properties Sdn and another action [1996] 1 MLJ 872 Legislation referred to: Companies Act 2016, sections 213(1), 471(1) and 541(1) Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, Rule 25(1) S/N ToEW04X6LUm5bBdrD6/wuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020

PLAINTIF MUHAMMAD ZAIRUL BIN YAHYA DEFENDAN 1. ) ZAIL BIN BADROL HISHAM 2. ) MOHAMAD KHAIRI BIN ITHNIN PENCELAH THE PACIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD

Kes kemalangan jalan raya-Beban pembuktian oleh Plaintif adakah Plaintif berjaya membuktikan tuntutan-sama ada pihak insurans berjaya membuktikan isu fraud.

11/01/2024

Tuan Ahmad Rizki Bin Abdul Jalil

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0b5c02c0-9f68-4ace-8bde-18a55f909b5b&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI SEPANG DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. KB-A53KJ-305-11/2020 ANTARA MUHAMMAD ZAIRUL BIN YAHYA …PLAINTIF DAN 1.ZAIL BIN BADAROL HISHAM 2.MOHAMAD KHAIRI BIN ITHNIN 3.THE PASIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENDAHULUAN 1.Melalui Perintah Mahkamah ini yang bertarikh 16 Ogos 2021,kes BK-S1-A53KJ-287-12/2018 telah disatukan serta dibicarakan serentak dengan kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020, dimana Plaintif di dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 iaitu Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya adalah Defendan Pertama dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018. Manakala Defendan Pertama dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 iaitu Zail bin Badrol Hisham adalah Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018. Kedua- dua kes ini telah disatukan serta dibicarakan serentak atas persetujuan 11/01/2024 13:18:24 BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Kand. 64 S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 pihak-pihak. Rayuan hanya melibatkan kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 oleh Plaintif terhadap liabiliti dan juga kuantum. 2.Plaintif (Muhammad Zairul) telah membawa tindakan dalam kes BK- A53KJ-305-11/2020 terhadap Defendan (Zail) yang mendakwa melibatkan motorsikal no. BFL 7031 dalam kemalangan ini. Selepas menerima satu laporan penyelaras, Pihak Defendan Ketiga (The Pasific Insurance Berhad) dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020, telah mendapati adanya unsur “fraud” dalam kes ini. 3.Hasil siasatan penyelaras mendapati bahawa Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dalam kes ini telah bersubahat untuk membuat satu tuntutan palsu berkenaan ganti rugi daripada pihak Defendan Ketiga. 4.Mahkamah setelah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi dalam kedua- dua kes, meneliti ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan dan setelah mempertimbangkan hujahan pihak-pihak, di atas imbangan kebarangkalian mendapati bahawa bagi kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Defendan Ketiga berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. 5. Manakala bagi kes A53KJ-287-12/2018, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Plaintif telah gagal untuk membuktikan penglibatan motorsikal No. BGV8040 dalam kemalangan dengan motorsikal Plaintif. Defendan Ketiga berjaya S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. LIABILITI Beban pembuktian 6.Berdasarkan nas undang-undang, beban pembuktian berada di atas bahu Plaintif sepanjang masa untuk membuktikan kes mereka terlebih dahulu sebelum beban berpindah kepada pihak Defendan. Dalam kes ini adalah menjadi keutamaan bagi menentukan sama ada kemalangan benar-benar berlaku di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama, memandangkan Defendan Ketiga mempertikaikan berlakunya kemalangan tersebut. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes-kes berikut: Ng Chui Sia V Maimon Bt Ali [1983] 1 MLJ “in an action for negligence, the onus of proving the allegation of negligence rests on the person who makes it. The Plaintiff must show affirmatively that there has been breach of specific or general duty by the defendant and this resulted in the damage to the Plaintiff. If he fails to prove this the action must fail”. 7. Dalam kes Sinniyah & Sons Sdn Bhd V Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 7 CLJ 584, “we therefore reiterate that we agree and accept the rationale that in a civil claim, even when fraud is alleged the civil standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities, should apply.” 8.Maka, Mahkamah mendapati adalah jelas bahawa Plaintif mempunyai tanggungjawab dan beban untuk membuktikan kesnya dengan S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 keterangan yang secukupnya dan yang tidak bercanggah sebelum beban boleh dialihkan kepada Defendan-Defendan. 9.Fakta-fakta kes yang menimbulkan isu fraud 9.1 Laporan SKVE Pihak SKVE adalah pihak pertama yang berada di tempat kejadian. Mereka mendapati bahawa, kedua-dua motorsikal Plaintif dan Defendan dalam kes ini telah jatuh sendiri akibat cuba mengelak serpihan tayar yang berada di atas jalan raya. Mengikut laporan SKVE, kedua-dua motorsikal berada di tempat kejadian semasa peronda SKVE sampai. 9.2.Kelewatan melaporkan kejadian kemalangan Kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan melaporkan kejadian kemalangan ini lambat dan kedua-dua hadir bersama di Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis. 9.3.Tempat berlakunya kemalangan adalah dipertikaikan oleh Defendan Ketiga. Tiada bukti kemalangan telah berlaku di lokasi material iaitu susur masuk SKVE, memandangkan tiada bukti langsung daipada Pegawai Penyiasat. Rajah kasar dan kunci rajah kasar juga tidak menunjukkan kesan kemalangan. 9.4.Tiada bukti kerosakan motorsikal dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa, Pegawai Penyiasat hanya ditunjukkan gambar motorsikal melalui whatsapp. 9.5.Keterangan Defendan yang telah menukar cerita dan versi kemalangan, apabila beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif versi kemalangan adalah berlainan tetapi apabila beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Defendan, versi yang berlainan pula diberikan. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 10.Mahkamah meneliti keterangan-keterangan saksi Plaintif dan Defendan dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan juga kes BK-A53KJ- 305-11/2020 kerana kes-kes ini telah digabungkan dan didengar bersama. 11.Keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat 11.1Pegawai Penyiasat telah menyatakan bahawa kemalangan berlaku pada 26.3.2016. Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah membuat laporan polis pertama pada 26.4.2016 yang menyatakan kemalangan berlaku pada 27.3.2016 dan beliau membuat laporan kedua pula pada 7.6.2016 untuk menukar tarikh kemalangan kepada 26.3.2016. 11.2.Manakala Plaintif (Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya) telah membuat laporan polis pertama pada 25.4.2016 dan laporan polis kedua juga pada tarikh 7.6.2016 seperti Zail bin Badrol Hisham. Beza jarak masa antara laporan pembetuan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama hanya 10 minit. 11.3Pegawai Penyiasat bersetuju, agak mencurigakan apabila kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama datang bersama-sama ke Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis. 11.4 Pegawai Penyiasat juga menyatakan bahawa beliau ke tempat kejadian dengan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya pada 26.4.2016 iaitu sebulan selepas kononnya kemalangan berlaku. 11.5 Gambar tempat kejadian ekshibit P5 (a) tempat kejadian menunjukkan gambar dari arah Klang-Banting menuju masuk ke Tol Panglima Garang. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 11.6 Walaupun laporan polis dibuat oleh pihak-pihak adalah lewat, Pegawai Penyiasat tidak berjumpa dengan pihak berkenaan di SKVE, bagi menyasiat kesahihan tempat kemalangan dan sama ada kemalangan ada berlaku. 11.7 Mahkamah mendapati bahawa, walaupun Pegawai Penyiasat telah dipanggil sebagai saksi pada 3.5.2021 dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287- 12/2018 dan diperiksa balas oleh Peguam Defendan Ketiga, beliau masih tidak meneruskan siasatan dengan berjumpa pegawai di SKVE Holdings apabila menerima sapina untuk datang sekali lagi dalam perbicaraan tuntutan silang, bagi menentukan penglibatan kedua-dua motorsikal dalam kemalangan. 11.8 Pegawai Penyiasat juga menyatakan bahawa beliau melihat motorsikal BEV8040 pada 26.4.2021 hanya setelah dibaiki. Pegawai Penyiasat ini juga hanya melihat motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham melalui aplikasi whatsapp di telefon bimbit. 11.9 Mahkamah mengambil kira keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat ini yang menyatakan bahawa, beliau bersetuju bahawa tidak ada apa-apa bukti yang menunjukkan motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham dan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya ada berlanggar antara satu sama lain. 11.10 Pegawai Penyiasat juga bersetuju dengan cadangan Peguam Defendan Ketiga dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 bahawa berdasarkan Laporan Perubatan, motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah terbabas dan jatuh sendiri. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 11.11 Pegawai Penyiasat ini juga dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak pasti sama ada motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham ada berlanggar dengan motorsikal Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya. 12.Keterangan saksi dari SKVE Holdings Sdn Bhd- Ismayatem bin Idris Saksi ini adalah Ketua Unit Keselamatan Trafik di SKVE Holdings pada masa kejadian. Beliau telah mengemukakan Operation Log Sheet dikemukakan sebagai ekshibit D1. Beliau menyatakan bahawa pada 26.3.2016, anggota patrol melaporkan kepada beliau bahawa terdapat kemalangan yang berlaku lebih kurang jam 1.37 pagi di KM 21 hala timur yang melibatkan motorsikal No. BFL 7031 dan motorsikal BGV8040 di mana kedua-dua motorsikal telah melanggar serpihan tayar lori. Beliau juga mengesahkan perkara-perkara berikut: a.Kemalangan tersebut berlaku di jalan susur masuk menuju ke Plaza Tol Saujana Putra Lebuhraya SKVE; b.Berdasarkan rekod SKVE, tiada kemalangan berlaku pada 26.3.2016 jam 1.45 pagi di jalan susur menuju Plaza Tol Teluk Panglima Garang; c.Jarak di antara Plaza Tol Saujana Putra dengan Plaza Tol Teluk Panglima Garang adalah lebih kurang 2 kilometer; d.Tempat kejadian yang dilakarkan dalam rajah kasar dan kunci adalah bukan tempat kemalangan yang dirujuk dalam kes ini, iaitu susur keluar ke Plaza Tol Saujana Putra; 13.Keterangan Zail bin Badrol Hisham Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah memberikan keterangan sebanyak 2 kali, iaitu sebagai Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan sebagai Defendan pada 4.11.2022 di dalam tuntutan silang iaitu no kes. A53KJ- 305-11/2020 S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Berikut adalah keterangan beliau sebagai Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287- 12/2018 pada 3.5.2021: a. Di selekoh susur masuk Lebuhraya SKVE, motorsikal BGV8040 muncul dari arah belakang lalu memotong dan berhenti hadapan beliau secara mengejut. Oleh kerana terlalu dekat, beliau melanggar belakang motorsikal tersebut; b. Beliau hanya ingat kejadian berlaku di jalan susur masuk. Itu sahaja memori tentang kejadian yang beliau ingat; c. Cuma ingat sebuah motorsikal warna ungu memotong beliau dan tukar haluan secara tiba-tiba; d. Beliau tidak pasti berlaku di kemalangan di lorong kecemasan atau di lencongan susur masuk; Berikut adalah keterangan beliau sebagai Defendan di dalam tuntutan silang: a. Terdapat sebuah motorsikal memotong beliau di jalan susur masuk menuju Lebuhraya SKVE, motorsikal itu kemudian melanggar satu objek di lorong kanan, hilang kawalan dan jatuh di depan beliau yang menunggang di lorong kanan. b. Beliau tidak tahu tentang objek tersebut sebelum ini. Hanya tahu melalui rakan beliau yang bernama Fairuz yang kononnya saksi kemalangan, tetapi tidak membuat laporan polis berkenaan perkara ini; c. Beliau menafikan Fairuz adalah rekaan; d. Beliau juga menyatakan tidak pasti kemalangan berlaku di jalan susur menuju ke SKVE atau lorong kecemasan Lebuhraya SKVE; S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 e. Beliau menafikan bahawa beliau sengaja tidak memberitahu tentang objek tersebut semasa memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif; f. Beliau menafikan bahawa beliau menukar versi beliau apabila mengetahui pihak insurans mengesyaki ada penipuan dalam tuntutannya; g. Beliau mengakui di dalam kedua-dua laporan polisnya, beliau mengatakan kemalangan berlaku di selekoh susur masuk; h. Beliau menafikan bahawa motorsikal BGV 8040 sentiasa berada di depan motorsikalnya; i. Beliau juga menafikan, bahawa beliau melanggar belakang motorsikal BGV 8040. 14.Berdasarkan keterangan Zail bin Badrol Hisham tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa adalah jelas beliau telah memberikan keterangan yang berbeza tentang bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Hanya setelah beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Defendan, beliau telah mengubah versi kemalangan dan menyatakan bahawa motorsikal BGV8040 melanggar satu objek di atas jalan, sama seperti kandungan Traffic Management Centre Operation Log Sheet dari SKVE Holdings. 15.Keterangan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya 15.1 Dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya tidak memberikan keterangan kerana beliau tidak hadir di Mahkamah. Penghakiman Interlokutori telah dimasukkan terhadap beliau dan penghakiman tersebut tidak pernah diketepikan. Namun begitu, pada 25.7.2022 beliau telah memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif di dalam tuntutan silang bagi kes ini iaitu kes no. BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 15.2Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan beliau tersebut. Berikut adalah keterangan beliau: Beliau menyatakan bahawa kemalangan dengan motorsikal BFL7031 berlaku di jalan susur masuk menuju Lebuhraya SKVE. Motorsikal BFL 7031 tersebut melanggar belakang motorsikalnya.Beliau tidak ingat perkara lain selepas perlanggaran kecuali beliau dilanggar dari belakang. 15.3 Apabila beliau membuat laporan polis pada 25.4.2016, beliau dibawa oleh seorang yang bernama Encik Syed yang beliau tidak tahu nama penuh, pekerjaan dan umur Encik Syed. Beliau tidak ingat bagaimana beliau dan Zail bin Badrol Hisham bersama-sama berada di Balai Polis semasa membuat laporan pembetulan tarikh kemalangan. 15.4 Beliau juga menafikan yang beliau terlibat dalam kemalangan dengan sebuah lori sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Laporan Perubatan. 15.5 Beliau bersetuju bahawa apabila beliau diperiksa oleh semua doktor pakar yang merawat beliau, beliau menyatakan tidak ingat apa- apa bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Beliau juga bersetuju, pihak yang pertama sampai di tempat kemalangan mempunyai maklumat yang tepat tentang kemalangan. 15.6 Hasil pemerhatian Mahkamah terhadap keterangan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya (Plaintif dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020) adalah jelas beliau berdolak-dalih dalam keterangannya. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa, semasa sesi pemeriksaan balas, dapat dilihat S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 beliau sukar menjawab soalan, mudah marah dengan soalan yang ditanya dan enggan menjawab beberapa soalan. Beliau tidak ingat apa-apa tentang kemalangan ketika bertemu dengan doktor-doktor yang memeriksanya, tetapi memberi versi dilanggar dari belakang di dalam laporan polisnya. Beliau juga tidak dapat memastikan motorsikal mana yang telah melanggar belakang motorsikalnya. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH 16. Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan saksi dalam kes BK-A53KJ- 287-12/2018 dan juga kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Mahkamah mendapati bahawa: 16.1.Pegawai Penyiasat tidak memeriksa motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham dan hanya menerima gambar motorsikal tersebut melalui aplikasi whatsapp. Beliau juga tidak melihat kerosakan motorsikal Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya, setelah sebulan lebih selepas kemalangan, beliau hanya melihat motorsikal Muhammad Zairul dan “assume” motorsikal tersebut telah dibaiki. Tidak ada apa-apa bukti yang menunjukkan perlanggaran di antara kedua-dua motorsikal. 16.2.Kedua-dua pihak membuat laporan polis lewat sebulan dari tarikh kemalangan, menyatakan tarikh yang salah dan sama-sama datang ke Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis pembetulan pada tarikh yang sama dengan perbezaan 10 minit sahaja. 16.3.Laporan Operation Log Sheet dari SKVE menunjukkan kemalangan pada tarikh 26.3.2016 jam 0129 hours disebabkan kedua- dua motorsikal melanggar serpihan tayar lori yang jatuh di atas lebuhraya dan terjatuh. Perkara ini disokong oleh gambar yang S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 dilampirkan di dalam Log Sheet tersebut yang menunjukkan lokasi di KM21.0 melibatkan motorsikal berwarna merah No. BGV 8040 dan disebelahnya terdapat serpihan tayar lori. Terdapat sebuah lagi motorsikal berwarna silver. Laporan itu juga menyatakan dua orang cedera parah. 16.4.Laporan Perubatan pula menyatakan Plaintiff (Zail) “was riding a motorcycle and skidded”dan menurut doktor, informasi ini diperolehi daripada Plaintiff (Zail) sendiri yang “alert and conscious”. 16.5.Pegawai Penyiasat yang menyediakan rajah kasar yang tidak konsisten dengan tempat kemalangan seperti yang dinyatakan oleh pihak-pihak dan juga oleh saksi dari pihak SKVE. 16.6.Zail bin Badrol Hisham memberikan versi yang berbeza untuk kes tuntutannya (BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018) dan untuk tuntutan silang (BK- A53KJ-305-11/2020) sebagai Defendan Pertama. 16.7.Muhammad Zairul sebagai Plaintif di dalam tuntutan silangnya memberikan keterangan yang berdolak-dalik dan mengelak daripada menjawab soalan. 17. Berdasarkan percanggahan keterangan yang amat ketara tersebut, Mahkamah memutuskan untuk menolak tuntutan Plaintif (Zail bin Badrol Hisham) dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020. Mahkamah mendapati, terdapat unsur penipuan/fraud dalam kedua- dua kes ini. Defendan Ketiga dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan Defendan Ketiga dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 telah berjaya di S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 atas imbangan kebarangkalian membuktikan terdapat unsur penipuan di dalam tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Ketiga. 18.Keputusan Mahkamah bagi kes no.: BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 Setelah meneliti keterangan semua saksi bersama eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan dan setelah meneliti hujahan bertulis pihak-pihak bersama autoriti yang dikemukakan, di bawah imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Plaintif telah gagal untuk membuktikan penglibatan motorsikal No. BGV8040 dalam kemalangan dengan motorsikal Plaintif. Defendan Ketiga berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. Namun demikian, sekiranya Defendan-Defendan didapati bertanggungan terhadap kemalangan ini atas dasar 100% bertanggungan, kadar gantirugi adalah seperti berikut: KUANTUM A) Gantirugi Am Atas Dasar 100% Liabiliti – a) Closed right prieto occipital fracture & fracture of right petrous temporal bone & multiple intracranial bleeding – RM20,000.00 b) Closed fracture left calcaneal & left calcaneum Kecederaan yang sama – RM13,000.00 c) Distal phalange left big toe – Ditolak S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 B) Gantirugi Khas Atas Dasar 100% Liabiliti – a) Kos carian JPJ - RM10.00 b) Kos laporan perubatan Hospital Serdang- RM40.00 c) Kos laporan perubatan Hospital KPJ Klang - RM604.20 d) Kos laporan polis -RM40.00 e) Kos perbelanjaan keluarga melawat Plaintif di Hospital Serdang - RM200.00 (RM100.00 X 2 hari) f) Kos rawatan pesakit luar d Hospital Serdang - RM300.00 (RM100.00 X 3) g) Kos rawatan pesakit luar di Hospital KPJ Klang - RM150.00 (RM50.00 X 3) FAEDAH (a) Faedah bagi jumlah yang ditetapkan dalam keputusan pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh keputusan sehingga ke tarikh pembayaran; Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah ganti rugi khas dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga ke tarikh penghakiman; dan (b) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah penghakiman dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh pembayaran penuh. (c) Kos tindakan mengikut skala yang diperuntukkan di bawah Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. (d) Atas persetujuan Plaintif, jumlah penghakiman dimasukkan ke dalam akaun pelanggan Tetuan M Manoharan & Co. untuk dibayar kepada Plaintif. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 19. Keputusan bagi kes no.: BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Setelah meneliti keterangan semua saksi bersama eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan dan setelah meneliti hujahan bertulis pihak-pihak bersama autoriti yang dikemukakan, di bawah imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Defendan Ketiga berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. Namun demikian, sekiranya Defendan-Defendan didapati bertanggungan terhadap kemalangan ini atas dasar 100% bertanggungan, kadar gantirugi adalah seperti berikut: Kuantum: A.Gantirugi am atas dasar 100% liabiliti: a.Severe head injury with right fronto-parietal intraparenchymal bleed and fracture of right frontal bone, temporal bone, right lateral wall of orbit, right zygomatic arch fracture and left palatal split - RM81,000.00 b.Right eye periorbital hematoma with traumatic mydriasis – RM30,000.00 c.Closed fracture right midshaft clavicle -RM18,000.00 d.Closed fracture right midshaft humerus -RM15,000.00 (minus 10% overlapping) -RM29,700.00 e.T2 spinous process fracture -RM15,000.00 f.Multiple abrasion wounds -RM3000.00 g.Scars -RM8000.00 JUMLAH -RM166,700.00 B.Gantirugi Khas atas dasar 100% liabiliti a.Kerosakan pakaian - Ditolak S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 b.Perbelanjaan kenderaan -Ditolak c.Kos laporan perubatan -RM28.00 d.Kos laporan polis -RM39.00 e.Laporan RIMV -RM10.00 f.Kerosakan motorsikal -Ditolak g.Kos rawatan -Ditolak h.Bil hospital -Ditolak i.Kehilangan pendapatan sebenar -Ditolak j.Kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan -Ditolak k.Kos kaki/tangan palsu dan kos menyelenggaranya -Ditolak l.Kos nursing care -Ditolak m.Rawatan susulan/ masa hadapan -Ditolak n.Kos kerusi roda/tongkat -Ditolak o.Perbelanjaan oleh keluarga untuk melawat di hospital pada kadar RM50.00 satu perjalanan sebanyak 10 trip - p.Bayaran bagi Plaintif untuk mendapatkan rawatan pesakit luar -RM50.00 perjalanan Item O dan P -RM300.00 r.Kos makanan khasiat -Ditolak Item-item yang ditolak atas alasan tiada bil dan resit rasmi dikemukakan atau saksi dipanggil bagi membuktikannya. Faedah: a.Faedah tahunan ke atas gantirugi am sebanyak 5% dari tarikh penyerahan saman sehingga penghakiman; b.Faedah tahunan ke atas gantirugi khas sebanyak 2.5% dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga penghakiman; dan S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 c.Faedah tahunan ke atas jumlah penghakiman sebanyak 5% dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh pembayaran. Kos tindakan adalah mengikut skala yang diperuntukkan di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Jumlah penghakiman dimasukkan ke dalam akaun pelanggan Tetuan Abdul Rahim & Co. untuk dibayar kepada Plaintif. tt. AHMAD RIZKI BIN ABDUL JALIL Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen 11 Januari 2024. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Peguam Plaintif: Tetuan Abdul Rahim & Co. Kuala Lumpur. Peguam Defendan Pertama dan Kedua: Tetuan Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong Kuala Lumpur. Peguam Defendan Ketiga: Tetuan M. Ravendran & Associates. Ampang, Selangor. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JB-12BNCC-2-06/2023

PERAYU HMT Trade Resources (M) Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN Sanxin Printing Systems Sdn Bhd

Appeal – Decision from Sessions Court – After a full trial – Goods sold and delivered – Denial by Defendant that goods were sold and delivered -– Existence of an oral contract – Goods were for a joint venture project and exhibition – Plaintiff to take back goods if the project does not proceed – Sale of Goods Act, 1959 – Counterclaim for declaration and specific performance - Whether declaration for a collateral purpose or improper motive - Demeanor of witnesses – Whether trial judge’s decision is plainly wrong.

11/01/2024

YA Tuan Suria Kumar a/l Durairaj Johnson Paul

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=027a4452-5838-4525-8180-b1c53b1f3c13&Inline=true

11/01/2024 14:53:37 JB-12BNCC-2-06/2023 Kand. 24 S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UkR6AjhYJUWBgLHFOx88Ew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal .7:-12aucc—2—us/2023 Kand, 24 uuzm 5/2023] :4 :53-3‘ DALAM IIAHKAMAH nmssn on MUAR nu mum usosm JOI-(OR DARUL uKzIuI, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: JB—1ZBNCC-24181202! ANTARA HMT TRADE a. RESOURCES (M) sou BHD (NO SVARNKAT 1omw»u) PERAVU DAN sawxm PRINTING SYSTEMS sun BHD mo SVARIKAT 9219934-P) RESPONDEN mum MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI anru PAHAT DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL uxzm, MALAYSIA sum»: SIVIL NO: Jc—B§2NCO»4»02/2022 ANTARA SANXIN PRINTING svsrsms sou am: (No svmxnr sassup) PLNNTIF DAN HMT TRADE z. RESOURCES (M) sou EHD we SYARIKAT m1413u—u) DEFENDAN IN um~nmwagmm.uz.. ‘NEVA sum ...m., M“ be used p. M, ... mm., M H; mm. VII grwuns W.‘ "'r'=“~=<-W/2&3 cumm- SURIA KUMAR A/L DURAIRAJ wrmscu PAUL JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER tsusL1uaauxmmnmmmmmummuumwémaamuuwamuuauuu GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT andr-umIsa£404uuxuLvcvatx<xuamu:.1<x(xm:.Is-an-uLuuuua<au!<4<4<4L% Iumouucnuu [1] ms is an 6993:! agamsx me fleclsmn at me Sessiuns Cowl an 13.6 2023 m allvwlng me PIain|mlRaspondan|’s claim and msmussing me Defendant/ApDe\lant's cuuneevdsvrn [1] The sumac: matter 01 «ms case cmcems machmely lur me pmucnon ol hnxes nv cavdbuam com. [3] P\am|flf wmzends me said macmnes were sold and dehvelsd m Defiendanl Decenaam m return oonmnds lhe macnmes wem mscea ax their plermse cuvumbmon and promwon purposes only [A] Fm ease onemence, |he names wm be Iefevred M: as Wamdfl and Delendanl respedwely m ms ‘udgemem sacxsnowo Mars (51 mamnm us a company that \s imxflvsd m me busmes: or selhng and vadmg pnnling machmas and consumable maxenms W. sum runny WW ... U544 u. «my n.. nH§\mH|V mm mm. Vfl mun: NM‘ II E izmtccrzroe/zuzal Ian. saya Ilanya /us: mosln kapadunyl um"-. sonommya, mssnusmin lorsohlnada/ahdi./ohnr Blnm dun upu nu. En Ricky plndah m¢IIn—mIIin tornbul ks Balu Lana». Kalau mosln luubut am/an muln Iayl, wan munykin En Ritky balm but nugm Korma say: Ida mug s-mm di Johor sanm, maka say: udak puvu non-u m-us-rlmmn mulnamsin kunubut kc BIN Paint.” [:11 Wheieas 591 the fbvmer General Manager From Lmucrafl Pnnlen sun and wnen asked duvmg cmssexanunsuan In produce suppomng documents for me uulvzulcing wurks awarded to the Plamnfl and necendanx 1-Pmecx evvairve . was unable in dc so and was rm] Delendanl rened on me ewdence of sun we was an ex—emp|uyee av P\zmIW in supporl dune existence dune oval comraci However‘ icoordmg m the Wamlwfl, sun was nut even an emplayee wnen ihe macmnes were dehvsred m March and May 2013 502 only became an emphyee snne Pxamun m July we In me circumstances mzn be mtened that 502 emery would um have kmwm me exlslsnoe or me oral oonlracx as alleged bylha Devendam my snz when snauenged dunng uou-sxannnauan on «ma pmnh agveed mal he was nm mvolved in wnvelcmg me Defiendanl [or me machmss and ms invnflvement \s only M: mntac| 593 [An] In any event‘ \ find 502 \s merely an emplayee and has no aulhnnly |a mud me P1zml\N mmpany or m rewme me terms M me sale nansacuon wmun (nok place balweun ma names befuve ne ‘clued me P\zmM oampany *7’ 7 j N uknuA4nv1uwagLHFuxaaEw was sum number wm s. u;-ed s. M, s.. snsnnn M Ma nnumzul Vfl sauna W.‘ s/znzal [411 The LSJ as me mal judge also made observations on the damearlaur and clsollnlny ol lna Deferldanu‘ wllnsssec la sm. snz and sna As soon, In nsanng ma appeal n ma exelclsa ol appollnle lurlsdldian‘ I am lnmlnooo of me Courl ol Appeal’: decislon in Renal Lmk (KL) son sno v DaIa‘Dr Humam slngn /1927]: cu 225 wherein Gopal Sn Ram JCA (as ne men was) nela.- -ln allrjudgmenl mm appeal Ieaw mms upon a pm qllesrlon or/aol Dased upon me cradlbl/Yy owls wnnasm who gm M91! moenca al ms ma! The runcllon oldelermlllmg wnars. on a balance olpmlaaaulllos, ma (mm layls onzmslaa by law tn mo mal Calm. llmess wa, as a com ol appeal, HID nonvlnoad lnal mm was no nnllclal appnmllon or me avldsrlcs nymo lllsrnlfact. onnallne audlo-wsual advantage mselved lo a rrial Judge nao been mlsssd ur ma: lno filldmgs maoo oo nol aooonl mm ms pmbabllmes of ms case when taken as a wnole. ll would Ilorbe open lo u: to lllrelvcna and upset the rmamgs made by a mu: Judge ‘ [421 The LSJ aha found me wnanmpu cmvsnauon on 142019 belween SD3 and SP2 relleo on by Delemanl lo nrvve lnal Plalnmf agreed lo place lnen machines nl Delenaanrs premise lnvex * puvpases Yefers only no same query on me emlnmon held annually by Plalnlm nonl SM and mm as omerwlsa eomanzsea by ma Delenuanl lon (431 Having pelused me sald Whzt:Aup cnlwarsannn, I 556 no laasun in mm: lrom lna concluslorl armed al Dy lne LSJ IN ulxfiflqhwuwagmruxalazw “ -nan. Sum ...n..l an a. wed In my me anamn Wm anuuvleul VI mung awn [ an: 9/znul [u] As m In: wewghl m be altmzhed In me Defendant‘; auegauon ol me axistunce cf an oval uonuacl in mmmmaax lvansamiuns, \ sland guuied by the decbsnan m A//rsnci Bank Malaysia and V Wan Snallnudm Wanlbvuhlm 4 snomercm 1201314 cu 553 ny Hamid sum... J (as he men vms)wherem His Lords p mnde the «enemy vemark5— ‘N7 [M5 me and era any a/reganan clonal aglssmsnl mar too by corporate personalities relating to corporate trans-acfron‘ mus! be lmwned by nouns /n Ssnyan Lumber sun and v Salvyzlv Wood lndusmsx Sdn and {zone} 1 LNS 32v, {zoos} 5 Mu 335. /mwu made me Iolfowvng or>ss:mnna.- ms p/mum my glaalfy an my judgment In Tang Smg Wung v Gsnesrs Fame Sdrv Blvd (sum cm: Apusll No 12.5: 9/ 2007) where r: was stated (1) my me//am m (Ila mm: submtssrarl placed great en-pr-asa on the oral Dgrasmervt Howmn as 5 matrelollacl the learned sesmnquag. Had rmz may accepted M9 appe»«anrs wrsranflx view court: shnuld give veg we wag‘ m to m undmom so when Ih9ysIsdesI1QvIIi!hcomom[g srlmios rm Dam 7'mg Check Sn V Daluk Haj!‘ Mommuad Tularl bin Mahmud 5. Us 12007) 1 ms 107,- /200715 MLJ 339; [2007] 7 MLJ 727) {MI The any nan 0! the common Law /urvspmdemie on mmcz developed on the Dam‘: can people IN ukRM4hwuwEgLHFuxaaEw W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; mm. VI muus NM! Ila-tzauzc-2-né/Inn] G syn ukRM4nwuwEgLHFuxaaEw Issnnsd almost in all cases to oral awdinca As Itlaracy nmz grew, wnnan agreement: bscsms more popular This resumed in me mlmducnon ol ew.1enn'e/ rules which did not 5: s gensral nne euaw wrmen documents to ye dvsplaced by oral agrusmsrlls A/most an or these rules as to emem navsoeen sncspsu/szemn ouIEvidence Act 1950 /n this me me aygllarv! elges oral agreement snmuem 10 me wnnen agnsemenr at me term: we mum conggmgggmnem and sent n m the ggmrmenl wmch is a eamneze snlgy. Further them Is no gm: reason given is to wny me mg n Isemem‘ o1 s Du! has m7! n! In w n n. n; neml wn/nozemex emgzngeveungszonesororelegreeznenrennns tims and era when ml any has fteggcy level mcraasad but mg mg gwzvslless allsgl M‘ nu grvd need Io! documervfaholv such as wrmalv gqrsemervts den‘!/sq order mvovce: soc In we cuss, me apoeflam has entered into a wnhan egraemenn nae also Issued Invoices, om nee not reduced the oral nspemnm wntirlg. on snen reczs, court will no! mdmlnly lend cmdence to the appellant's vemon as sucfi precedent wullpmmots unneemvy lmgalien and n is not m we public: Interest to do so, .-ekmg mm cwlsvdsrabon me: such men egnsamams can Ilmost m all cucun-evenees he mnnempmneous», reduced In wnnng on Mix subject wage to me ixtenfof -W. sum ...n.., wm .. wed In my me nngwnnuly Wm nnumgul VI erxuus rmm Iv uamx 6/Inn; E saymg ma: mun should Invoke adverse Drawmfltron -laamsf Dimes who ammm to flmnduce om! agmsmsm m crwl cases where mm is ampna opportunity contemporaneously m reduce n m wnnng ' [451 In my judgement‘ me learned sessmns Judge ma non comnul my ervms because he had Dcnswdered and mmanea me am emenne 0! bath paII|es' wnnsssss m mlahly and wewghed n agaIns1 me documentary emanca hem: oondudlna nu: in max cun(ra4:| as alleged by Ihe uemaanc does nal axis! [451 In me cncunmanoe. ma LSJ was na| plmmy wrang when he found there was no such on: comraci (471 um I aha find supnon hum ma pmvlsmns m lhe san; 9/ Goods Act 1957 as Ioullcable In me ram. In the present case. [48] semtan 24 ollhe Sale ofGuods Am 1957 read — “Mun Hood: on comma to ma nuyor on apllrovnl or "an s a or I-tum", or -mm 5/mllnr nuns. 0:: property klluein pans: In an buyer. (a) wnan he ugnmes Hrs approval or acceptance la ms seas: or does any other set ampnng the transaction, (bl if ha does not slgnnv his npnrov-I or lccvpuncv to ma sum but nhlns an. goods without giving noun n/rincdon, Dun. n . fimn nu boon may for N ukRM4hwuwEgLHFuxa.!Ew nan sum runny wm ... U544 n «My n.. nH§\mH|V MW; mm. Vfl grwuus NM‘ unzmuc: 6/1023] E m. rufum cl gooas, on ch uxplritlnn afsuch rimn, -mmno time has been fixod, an the uprnrnm on rlnsanahlc rims.‘ [49] Whereas seem" 53 soc»: 1957 provides what Is a veasnnabka am. .5 a questlun wad ms seclmn lead V '52 Rlasonablc fimu : quutlon oflncr Whom In mu AM My mflrunu is made ta a rusonlbll um, um question what is a msunanlu Kim: I: a question alfact.“ [so] In my mgamem, me mlermon omem pames ws |c be gamma mm me terms of the Ilwmce, dehvely order, ualement at account, the camucl of lhe panlas and me clmumstxnces :7! me se Please see N Knshnamunhy v Leasing Car): Sdn am may cu (Rep) 593. [511 When me machines were delnveled In Delendanl, Delandanl did nu| swgnifylo Plalnlflflhal n we prqect \s not Dmoeeded mm, Plimmf 1: 1:7 «aka back me mcmnes What Deiendanl cm: was my retained me macmnes lnr mare than me year: and umy [hereafter mey are asked Puammnn take back me maemnes [521 In my judgement tms cenalmy we nu| a reasonaue lune [er the Defendant In swgnify that may we not buy me machmes W. sum runny WW ... U544 u. «my n.. nH§\mH|V mm mm. Vfl mun: NM‘ u mm 1 06/2023] E [521 suieiy by Iheni me progeny in me machines Ind aiisaay passed |o isie naianaani Ind wnax remains is in: me naiaiiaani lo pay iris price suns mac nsis Pisinuu [54] What 1715 lads seem to aisciass is man there was an iinmiiaiiionai wnlmcl corms saie aisiassiiia machines wnicii has been dsiwsisa, msieioie, pmperly ma mscriiiiss had passed |u ms Demands»: and ii is immaisnai wnsuier the iime oi payment oi me price was posipoiisd rims see Saclion 20 see»: 1957 Ainiaiigii inis ssziioii mm in me sale ai specilic goods in a dehverzble siais, in my iuagemeiii, me same Should apniy to specific goads man have been ueiiysied [551 Nuxt Deieiiaaiii argues man me usuai plastic: is an Piziniiii la iorwaia a qimiaxion tn Deieiidaiii nisi iiisieau or iorwaraing the invoices. [551 I am oi me sansiaaiea View inai there is In) ssinmaicisl nraciiee or norms which make it mandamry ioi quolalions to he issued oeims every saia 01 goods II wuuia depend on ma vancus «ypas nl saia lrinslctions and ins panies [571 The lad itisi them is no QU<7YahDl1,dfi!I not mean that Ihe sale 0! ins machine: am not (Ike place ueweeii ine panies [so] The L5J‘s lmding msi Deiandanl was aware oi me «am due in Plamhfl is supported by Piaiiiinra dowmemary evidence and 1716 mimemns whsmpp oolwevsalions between both pames mi a iong period II can be iiiienea hum ma Wha1sAPD oonveisaiiona max 1715 cam which Plilnmfs repieaariiaiive was chasing and iaminsiiig an. s.ii.i ...n..i M“ a. nun is vevly me nflgmluly MW; nnunvizul VI AFVLING mi 1]): man: as/zozay E Delendzm tn pay \s (or these machines and not Dov any other (ranssmnun: ov debts due «a Plammt as contended by navandam [aw] Next‘ ma dmer wrnporlanl evvdsnee which cnlmburahes F1imM‘s conlsrmon manna machines were sold and delivered In Defendant us the Delendanrs crednov Smemenl addressed |D P\a|rmfl da|ed 5 ru 2021 [en] The crednurs naxemem conlradxcs me Delendanrs stand an me amends at me purported mu mnhanl [511 ll vefevs |o P1zmuN‘s J mvmcas da|ed 2 3 2015, a 3 2015 and 2 5 ma‘ detaulmma muchmes saw and dellveved and their pnoe Fdr use orraaenance, me CIednovSlaIemen| is reproduced beluw — [Thin Iplw us Intdnlnouilty Ion blank] N UkR£fi4hWUWEgLHFDxa!Ew E Nate sum mm M“ ... U544 u. «my n.. nH§\mH|V mm mm. Vfl HVLING NM‘ un~1zaM'Jcrzrm’z/2013] Nntmns n nawuncsn nu um um) «um: um uuuwuummmum ~:.. nlunomuunmlumlmlnxxm u. nwmumm gm...» mum-as mznrmxsmmzur nu. alum mmmmmmmw """“' """“‘ ,,,..,‘..fi;,~ vb: ulnsuoulu umnnunlm M mumummm - ’ In E. numb: - a mu mm m nu! mm» in nu Moan rvrmuw um-Amvlamaur mu .. my man mum mum: mama m.-.4 mud!!! wan - any .. man mm: mama or ......q mu .4 mm - nun. y... «um mm mm! mt mu mm mm mm: a» mum mm mm main aw mu um: um mm wot mm! mu mm mm: aw my Au mm! mm: n mm. Ilmmnrmmxwl um .- mum unzauc: as/zmi - b. 88 mnwmannzwuxcamammmm. mu mumammmmm Imunmmltmtuwvwnm W" mmmmnu ..v...m. m-Inwmlu CREIITYW !'|’lTllIlfl mm «mm nnnnmmvvlnmlasibvn mullmmlltlmt mummnw. aansmlswcuuium mam! Aluuwm Mwlu Mum mm MUIA mm Mvm mm a mud an.-uouum. %sm..u»..mwagm...Ew Z -W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; mm. VI muus NM! n nnmic s/M21] E A: Deiendlnfs request, Pmrmn mm mm delivered Ihe commng machines |o Defemtanl ma 3 mvmcas dated 2.3.2019, 6.3201! and 2 5 2u1a.— 1 um! avcammm Slimng Machme (sw—135u), x mm arsemmum Spray Adhasrv: Machine mason), 1 mm nlAng\e CuI(er(ZZD-120)‘ 1 mm or Au(umI(Ic Rngm Box Makmg Macmne Ifllnocmarcameva) (suzavy and 1 mm at Bax Wrzppev .n===r9v rn Thu uarans oflhe sale and purchase of mucmnes are as foHoms - Me. ‘an. Imolcns Dcllvoly Youl Balamn : cuammnn ova: (um um ‘ ‘ * um ’ ’ 232c1s mooosaoz mooasaoz swasoo ss.sseoo 2 532015 xmoooaaza mooussoz mnaoo zawvsno 3 zszms maoassu mooussea nzzsuoo Aaagzsno 4 auvzuzo new 7 {luuomp Amszsnn wow 5 zammn on-maezs - :1 37000) 41955500 ' m.mum.musuu msssou [5] Amordmg la Plumun, Decermamauea la pay melcnal outstanding sum ni RM419,556 no for the machines mm am aelwsms to Defendant Hence me Plamxnmsa ms dawn aaamu ma Date-mam m we Semen: cam m Whereas Delendznfs devance :1 ma: bum F\a\nIM and Daiundam were inlemlad m “away mvamng ma pimcrpallng m a men ralalad ea ma pruduclnn ol boxes/plber malelims or mam Box in! sm ukRM4hwuwEgLHFuxaaEw -W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; m.m. VI muus wvm n mmcc 5/zu11| u [521 In adduben‘ m me Whatskpp cmwemum on 29 7 zuzn wmcn shxwus lhe phnlngvaplu cl one anne machines bemg rammed m Plainm uevenaam cnnmadicts Chev scam an the exzwanea 01 me oral coma by rsmylng In Plamlm man as far we balance madune, my will apply em an. lnan «mm me am In same a. Fm ease or rememe, me Whatsapp message on page 232 Mme Renard MAppeal Is Iepmduoad harem below - 2, mm mo M... mm M IuVIn0kluh:vv:¢1A|:muxa1nrIighs:I mm M. Mam yavqlim up my. mmm. pammwwn mm." 4....» mm. M. Iui2n1ehIn§nyibu\inS¢pltvnblV were umu u... ,..m.. unpan gm ham: IAHIMI m. Auflvn nemmmalmztaowmaw [Yhls spine is inhntiunally I-R blank] sw ukRM4hwuwEgLHFuxaaEw -W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. .m.u.y mm mm. V1 mums W.‘ j fl |IR»17.nM(c»2-as/znu] E [53] Hence, x um um me learned Sessmns Judge ws non plainly wvun amvmg at me «namg of [ads and I amnu ms findmg nflacls made by mm. me:-mory rmmanu Spunific perfannanca [54] Funhan I am mm met me Deoenuem Is no! enmied In avhly for a declaratory renal m respecc at an em! summer In lake back me macmnes acwvdmg to Sermon 41 speurm Rehefs Acl1950 [sq ms \ say because semen 41 Mers In emmemenl cu any legal cnarsuer or any ngm |e any pmperly n concerns a deck-nation cl 2: slams or nghtwhlch already exists rm Is nm Iecngruxsd. T NEVA sum ...m., W1“ be M p. M, ... nngmnhly M W; mm. VII grwuns W.‘ H mm mam E [sq Whaveas nna ex\s|enoe 01 an oval mnuazx Much is dented by one annan party and in breach mun be sslablnshed by adducing oval nasnnrnnnynm a finding alfacl la be made hy the Conn [571 Iva finding was made an |he axnsnanaa an ma ara\mmrac1,IhenIhe Plannnm clavm var goon: sons: and delrveved mu can {an} Therefore, n my jnmgarnann nne Defendanl ns nan enlmed no seek a dedzvalxxn on ma axnsnanoa an nna nval cormacl when lmm nna anaan ma axnananca anhe anal eonnnacn nselfls darned by ma annan pany [sq] Whm Deflendank needs to do Is In adduce sufficlem amanaa «an a finmng 0113.1: no he made on the exnanenaa nun: man ocnlrzd nu] Even W I am wrung an lms pmnn as snanaa by the Com ommaan In Sakapp cammonms (M) Sdn Ehd V cm Abmham /1995]: cm 512‘ ane cannon amann a declarahan [era ooI\anter=\ purmxa unwnn an nmprapev mauve rm nn my judgement‘ mm na vma| Dananuann na exacfly dmng nww hevehy aaakmn a declarauon when may are unable no pay vornna macmnas by contending nnan mere was ms oran connnacn [721 Henoelurlh wI|h:1uIma existence nfarvy Ural cormacl as mnlended by Denenaann, Dzlendam Is nan ennnnnea to nna remedy or mama peflalmance as he1d by Net Ladyship Nanin. 4 (as she men waay m Rf»/rem Promotions sun Bhd V Gelmng Pslkasa Sdn and a Dr: (201015 MLJ 592 as1nllcws- Nate sum number wm n. M n «My Due nnwn wnu mm. Vfl arnuws NM! Ill!-1z1;NcL-2-as/znlz] I -spear/m perfarrnsnm, m accordance mm 5 15 nilhe Suenrfin Rs/mls Ac! flruwdes 1IIaf‘lny pcuun suing for mu Ipocifiz Dunbnnnncu on contact may use ask for componmrnn Iar Ils bnach .mm In addlfian rm at In subsfitullun far. its pldamlance ctsarvy me sectvon ermsagss that m ordsrlo prams sascmc performance, them must be a comma? which has come mlo existence Puranoms, way, specfic perlormarme ole contract is mztflossm/s whats mm »s rm wrvlraclin axtslence ' [11] Smae n have amrmea me findmg allzml made by me LSJ max there .5 no such era! mnlvact as zHe9ed by Defendant, Defendant therefor: rm! enmiad In me remedy cllpacmc perfnrmanoe. [141 Lasfly, based on me mmems ov me WhaY5App mnvevsauan bslwsen hum Dames, Ddlendanfs cvadllur statement addressed m F\am|M eonnamcu me exusoenee of me om canmaa and mam ws no evidence m support of the inveslmenl men known as the “Dyson Pmjec|' lnr ma pmduchan ov boxes adduced by Defendant‘ I find Defendant my not cammg to com «um clean mnas seeking lor me remedies under me spasms RaIIe1Ac11550. swag: Figs us] On me era-m fat storage fees. since me pmpeny m me mscnmes and already passed my Delendam based on me Cami‘: lmding mat n was me sale and delivery 0! goods‘ lhe queslicn alDe1em1zn( chanzm Plamml lor swane lees was not anse Nate sum runny WW ... M » «My n.. nH§\mH|V MW; mm. Vfl muws NM! Iuuzauc sum! 3 Va; The LSJ nan mnecuy msmlssed the Delendanrs nlznm lav smvage fees DECISION [11] \n me cucumscan, I find me deem" 01 me LSJ was nal vlamly wrung when he com me Plamml had prvven men claim and me Delendanl had name: In pmve men mun|eIr:\aIm an the hamnne al pmhannmes rm In my Judgement‘ (here are no reasons Oor me no mheflare mm m: findmns me] This zppez\ is hevehy dvsrmssed wilh can and me dscvsmn 01 me weamea seesms Judge on 13 a 20231: uvhem. Dam: is 2"‘ November 202: an Muar m me swans rflJuIIoru u. SURIA xumn cu PAUL Juan:-an Commlsaxuner mgr: coun cl Malaya Muav Johnna Dam! Ta'zxm Counull: For me Applllanl Lum Kok mug mm Tan Mung Chu IN umM4nwuwagLHFuxaaEw ‘Nate sum runny wm ... U544 we «My n.. nH§\mH|V mm mm. Vfl muus NM‘ [ya—11k>4£r..2.n6/znzz] Fur ma Rupondont Ravwkumav all Ammugam Forl gg M Messrs Lum Kok Kinny 5. Co. Advocates 5 Soluzlors K65‘ Snlans Mun!‘ Klara No 2, Ji\sn swans 5n4En Kuma Lumpur pz . No. : uLKxmMnaMRsa:sPssmu2:nzz11 For 1 Must: Zulalla L Auocllhl Aavocaxes 5 Solmnnrs No 30-1 5 3:12 [along Batu Nllam 45 412011 Mann Sslanger Balm Ehsan pm. No : ZA/2fl22l01ILilIfl031 Haring um 30* Omober 202: on Dan 2"“ November 2023 IN um~nmwagmm.uz.. — ‘NEVA sum ...m., M“ be mad p. vevly M nH§\nnH|Y M W. mm. VII mun: NM‘ n mm mum u Dyson auisaumaa hya ssmpany nailed Liimciall Fnniavs Sdn Ehd In both names as sulrocn|rac|urs (‘Dyson Pmiscf) [mi Henoeionn. aecammg la Deienaani, mm games had reached an oral aonlracl whereby Plainlill wuuld place its maeinnas at neienaanrs premise fur me sxnimnon and pmmoucn and ii me pvaje rial uioceeded with, Piamnwwoui-1 vakebaakme Iviachmes (‘orai cormacr) m] rneieaiiei me pnusci muld not be yrwcasdad win because Lhe Pruiem was taken ever by analhei company because snne issue si mung. quamy and aeiwery [121 As such‘ Deiemam eeniends mm was no salt! and purchase of me machines between one names and smoe me pmjenl did not proceed, Fliinlifl musk lake back me machines per me mai ccniraci [131 Thus, naismani in mm caumzercisimed aguinsi P1ain|ifl lor a declaranon man me oral conliact is vahd ans blndmg nemasn mu. names and an Order far specflic performance againai Piainmi io penarm me aiai mnuaa by |akmg back the macmnas within 14 days «mm ms dale nuna cm: [141 Allei a mu Inal. me learned Sessiuns Judge allowed me Piainmra claim lor me sum at RMM9,556.0U wnn mieresx and cast and dismisssu me Datemianrs cuunieieiaun wim ms: [is] Being fllssmisfied wun me said GBCIEWDVL ma Delendanl now appeals against in. wiisia daemon io nus cuun N ukRM4nwuwEgLHFuxaaEw K Nab: Sum ...n..i win a. M544 I4 M, u.. .nsn.u, MW: nnunvieul VI eriuns pnflli II ANALYSIS AND FINDING [as] In neanng ms appaan \ am vamirvdad and guided by me pvlncwples that gm/em appeHlIe mlelvanlton ana the p|am\y wvcng lest established m me lallcwmg cases‘- m s auany sun and vs Desam Development corporuvon Sdn and 5. Or: /2019] 1 LNS193. (u) Driam Property Sdn Bhd vs Atlas wousmg Sdn BIu1[2D15] 2 MLJ 441 Balance nulrunding sum RM419,555.no [171 Pmnmv aumnuts max me wnvoicss, delivery nmers and slalemenl mi accaunl rendeved In naenuanc are clear awaence mm me machmes were 501d and dehveved ca Defendam pa] Vn support ol their suhnuwon. Flamm rsfius on me mm case cl Cllhx on llalzynia Ltd v. Classic Boat sun End 5 on mus] 5 MLRH e. whevem it was held by Sunyadl J (is ne «nan was) » -/n wmmg :9 4 gggm a £555: mvofvflg ggpds so/d ang dc/rversa such as in mm my I M; w flag due emghasrs on me wnttsn documents namely me szatemng g gmunzs In r srs delrvs notes and me debt! n mess documents M m gumwely consmme a mnrnm rsducad mm wmm " IN umu4nwuwagLHFuxaaEw ‘Nate sum ...m., wm be M n M, n.. nflgmnuly MW; mm. VI mun: W.‘ Iva zmc n6/Z013] E [19] u 5 ram mspmea |11al5 mschmss ware dehvared |u Defendant and one was rammed in Fkavrmll [10] The uevenaam m Ihelr defence was not mspuca |ha\ me machmas were delwered Io them by FVSMNI «er the total cost or RM41s,55soa [21] They only deny the mscmnet were mm |n them by me Ptamlwfl [22] Their sole oemenmn 5 ma! smce me pmyecl was not proeeaaea mm, mama has In take back me machmes per the oral manna Exlstancu af om cwmct 12:) Gwen lhal P ' in am cm the pulse nv me machmes sold and dehvered and Delendsnfs eounlarclavm on ma emsumue mum ma» mnlram are mlenwined‘ \ shaH den! mu nonn am-uuaneuusly [211 The crux at me Defendant‘: Defencu and Coumer Claim \s the msxeme M an oral comma between me game: m raspezl ml ma machines on the fbllu g terms V (I) The macmnes are m be Dlaoed an Defendant‘: prermses lo! exmbmcn nnd pmmouon purvosea: my To be used lur the ‘amt venture inveslrnenl/prqect by bum names‘ we Dvapect ws no| pmceeded mm, Plamull has re Lake back me machine: N ukRM4hwuwEgLHFuxaaEw Nate sum runny WW ... M » «My n.. nH§\mH|V MW; mm. Vfl muws NM! In new: 5/znzz] [25 In me umumevanee, me numen Kn pmrve me exmense M such an em contract has on me Delsndanl aHegmg me same. semen 103 Ewdence Acl1P50 lead- “The burden or war as to any particular fact He: an mar person who wishes me mm m believe in its existence, urllvss n In pmwded by any new me: me pmofoflhal lac! she)! be on any pemcularpsnon " [:51 In my ;uagemem_ in such a situation‘ we De1endan|needs «a wave me existence mi me mal canuaxzl by way 01 max ewwenoe from me hzsnmnnws erwwnesses. [:1] The Defenflanl summit: that me learned seseians Judge med |u make 3 «name on me existence or me man cennact based on me fnH:w4mg reasons- uy me emenee by SP2, we at P\amnH's dureciors and shareho\der$ m respem of me sweplance hy Plamml M me mum ofone maemne by Delendanl In my 2020, my me credit none wssued by Mavnlifliorlhe return owns macmne: 1i the wnansnpp conuersamon on 11 5 mm «mm Defendant to Plamull mm regards to me remm ulmxs mzmne, qw) me Iasumany aims Puammrs Iovmer sexes execmwe (502; regarding me existence of me ‘aim vennne plqect belween me mamas, and N ukRM4nwuwEgLHFuxaaEw we sum ...m.., wm ... me n M, e.. nngwnnuly wm nnumeul VI mung W.‘ ll um as/7.01111 (v) the maumony by sm who Is also one av the dvectors and sharehaldev at me P\a|n|\li (SP1) m respad of me discussmn halvmen ma dvveckn av the Dafulldanh sea and SP2 an me remm mus machines. [25] m suhmmmg me ex\s|enoe nflhe nral:x1n|rac|,me Defendant relies on ma seleclwe evidence warn that wimaasas and the whaumw carwavsalinns to establish me same [29] m my considered view‘ when a any allegesme ex1s|enoe clan Mal cunhzcl, the emdenoe adduced mun bu ounswdered m lolalmy and not in Ismalwon pa) lflnfllhal ms very caumg lmm ma WhalsApp conversations between mm pamesIha\ navanaamamy yauaad ma issue cmczming mammr mus: like back than mlchmes when mammr xam uwasmg and vecmndmg Delendam 0! me payment due lav mese machmes [31] The machmas were dehvered to me Devsnaam m March and May 2015 The max ume Delendanl asked me Plamufl In lake back ma mazmne was on 2212o2n ma Whalskpp conversation which vs appummaeaxy one and a half years aflav us delrvsry [321 In aaumon, Deaena-m an nu! even once pm m wrmng to Fhmufl man may am am pumhaselhe machines and Ihal Ilwas envy placed a| mew pvemvse k: be used in a jam! vanmve mvstlmanl/pmjecl nr lurexhlbmon and nrnmcnon purposes [:11 The firs! ume Defendant pm K m wntmg as m the existence cl ma Dmpcrled oral comrau was m Nsnonse lo we names at demand N ukflflqhwuwagmruxaazw Nate sum rumhzr wm a. M Ix; «My Due nH§\mH|V «ma anumgul Vfl muus ma m as/um dated 311zu22 and 2122022 sent by mammrs salxnlms demanding me debt due lovlhe sale Mme machines [34] \n my ;ud9emenL rv K was «me man an many (he aral wnlna exwsled between me names, uemaam should have respended pmmpflyla Plalnmf on me exwslenee nl me aral contract when invmces wave senlln them in March and May 2m and lhereaflar lclluwed bylbe mommy slalemem of ac-aunts lorwavdsd lo [hem Delendinl an rmming -mm the \/'lhatxApp conveusum an 22 1 ma when nevanaanx asked P\a\rmFHa |ake bad (he manhmes pm One would have expected me Dsfundanl so make a prompt wgumus dumal and p1c|es( all ma Invoices‘ aenvery ovders and the statunem uvaecnums sen! to [hem ‘In new Wong Hon Lsung v Naommsn Adnarv[1995]l cu 155, me Cuurl c1Appea| speaking through sn Ram JCA held - ‘During argument we rsgtslersd our surpzriss .52 me mmea Judge‘: ruluclancs to war jlldamenl lor Mrs sum or Rmoo,aoa Allsr all. me sppeuam um [sued to msporld to one Iensr ml 17 December /1 them had never bean an aglsememas alleged, 1: is masmme lo sxpscf s ptompt and vigamus dsmal. But, as we have pomrad out, were we: no response whatsoever mam me appeuan: Joseph Jr J m Tan cmg Hack V. Chan Thazm Soo[196S] 1 ms 421129712 MLJ 479.457 In M/fedsmann V walpors [1591] 2 as 534, 5.17 an aclvolv Io! mach cfpmmtss annamage, :1 wa: held, IN ukRM4hwuwEgLHFuxaaEw 'NnI»¢ sum ...m.., M“ ... M w M, n.. .mW., MW: mm. VI mung W.‘ __ Iv umc no/zml u that me man; ram that me as/sndan! am no: answer Vstlsrs written to mm by me pmnmm wnicn she mm mm ne had pmmtsed In many her, was no awdsrvce curruborating Me Mainly/7‘: tasllmony m suppon olsuch pmmrse Lord EsHerM R, in his/udgmenl, mrvlaried, Hans, we have anly la sis wnemerms mere vac: ofnot answsnng Nvs )eftsr:‘ mm nommg else Ior us an oonsrden: any evidence in ollhe pmmlss ’(Emphasis added) Earlier, in msjudgmerm hs ssrd, Now mm an um - bnmlnon -my murclnmo sun In which no Court: mm man narrow: ,m [In ordlnarycoursa alnuslnlss, llanu man anmsimss mm in 1 Inn-r In annfhor that n. nu am-ca on do conaln thlngsy ma plrlon who rucurvos am Iotllrmust nnswarlt I! no moms to dispute the ram um In did so agm. (The empnasrs rs ours V [151 As [or wenaanrs conhennon mu sm agreed m her :mss— eximlnsnon ms: me arrangemeru an Ihe remvn :2! me machmes is In be mscusseu belween swz and sun‘ Plamlwfl in reswnse Vane: on me |esl\rnony 01 SP2 mmsalf who confirmed me: «he machines were salt! and delivered lo me Defendant SP2‘: nesemea as Inflows- “Kurana Iylrikat say: mnya [ml Inosrn sanajl. bukan unruk mmn new link slm s:II:]:, hukan. Kami Puma jual muln. Judi, muin ilu buknn Imk di nmpar Mr Ricky N uma~nwuwagmm.uz.. Nate sum runny WW ... U544 u. M, n.. nflmmfllv M H; mm. Vfl HVLING NM‘

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020

PLAINTIF MUHAMMAD ZAIRUL BIN YAHYA DEFENDAN 1. ) ZAIL BIN BADROL HISHAM 2. ) MOHAMAD KHAIRI BIN ITHNIN PENCELAH THE PACIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD

Kes kemalangan jalan raya-Beban pembuktian oleh Plaintif adakah Plaintif berjaya membuktikan tuntutan-sama ada pihak insurans berjaya membuktikan isu fraud.

11/01/2024

Tuan Ahmad Rizki Bin Abdul Jalil

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0b5c02c0-9f68-4ace-8bde-18a55f909b5b&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI SEPANG DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. KB-A53KJ-305-11/2020 ANTARA MUHAMMAD ZAIRUL BIN YAHYA …PLAINTIF DAN 1.ZAIL BIN BADAROL HISHAM 2.MOHAMAD KHAIRI BIN ITHNIN 3.THE PASIFIC INSURANCE BERHAD …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENDAHULUAN 1.Melalui Perintah Mahkamah ini yang bertarikh 16 Ogos 2021,kes BK-S1-A53KJ-287-12/2018 telah disatukan serta dibicarakan serentak dengan kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020, dimana Plaintif di dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 iaitu Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya adalah Defendan Pertama dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018. Manakala Defendan Pertama dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 iaitu Zail bin Badrol Hisham adalah Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018. Kedua- dua kes ini telah disatukan serta dibicarakan serentak atas persetujuan 11/01/2024 13:18:24 BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Kand. 64 S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 pihak-pihak. Rayuan hanya melibatkan kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 oleh Plaintif terhadap liabiliti dan juga kuantum. 2.Plaintif (Muhammad Zairul) telah membawa tindakan dalam kes BK- A53KJ-305-11/2020 terhadap Defendan (Zail) yang mendakwa melibatkan motorsikal no. BFL 7031 dalam kemalangan ini. Selepas menerima satu laporan penyelaras, Pihak Defendan Ketiga (The Pasific Insurance Berhad) dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020, telah mendapati adanya unsur “fraud” dalam kes ini. 3.Hasil siasatan penyelaras mendapati bahawa Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dalam kes ini telah bersubahat untuk membuat satu tuntutan palsu berkenaan ganti rugi daripada pihak Defendan Ketiga. 4.Mahkamah setelah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi dalam kedua- dua kes, meneliti ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan dan setelah mempertimbangkan hujahan pihak-pihak, di atas imbangan kebarangkalian mendapati bahawa bagi kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Defendan Ketiga berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. 5. Manakala bagi kes A53KJ-287-12/2018, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Plaintif telah gagal untuk membuktikan penglibatan motorsikal No. BGV8040 dalam kemalangan dengan motorsikal Plaintif. Defendan Ketiga berjaya S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. LIABILITI Beban pembuktian 6.Berdasarkan nas undang-undang, beban pembuktian berada di atas bahu Plaintif sepanjang masa untuk membuktikan kes mereka terlebih dahulu sebelum beban berpindah kepada pihak Defendan. Dalam kes ini adalah menjadi keutamaan bagi menentukan sama ada kemalangan benar-benar berlaku di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama, memandangkan Defendan Ketiga mempertikaikan berlakunya kemalangan tersebut. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes-kes berikut: Ng Chui Sia V Maimon Bt Ali [1983] 1 MLJ “in an action for negligence, the onus of proving the allegation of negligence rests on the person who makes it. The Plaintiff must show affirmatively that there has been breach of specific or general duty by the defendant and this resulted in the damage to the Plaintiff. If he fails to prove this the action must fail”. 7. Dalam kes Sinniyah & Sons Sdn Bhd V Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 7 CLJ 584, “we therefore reiterate that we agree and accept the rationale that in a civil claim, even when fraud is alleged the civil standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities, should apply.” 8.Maka, Mahkamah mendapati adalah jelas bahawa Plaintif mempunyai tanggungjawab dan beban untuk membuktikan kesnya dengan S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 keterangan yang secukupnya dan yang tidak bercanggah sebelum beban boleh dialihkan kepada Defendan-Defendan. 9.Fakta-fakta kes yang menimbulkan isu fraud 9.1 Laporan SKVE Pihak SKVE adalah pihak pertama yang berada di tempat kejadian. Mereka mendapati bahawa, kedua-dua motorsikal Plaintif dan Defendan dalam kes ini telah jatuh sendiri akibat cuba mengelak serpihan tayar yang berada di atas jalan raya. Mengikut laporan SKVE, kedua-dua motorsikal berada di tempat kejadian semasa peronda SKVE sampai. 9.2.Kelewatan melaporkan kejadian kemalangan Kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan melaporkan kejadian kemalangan ini lambat dan kedua-dua hadir bersama di Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis. 9.3.Tempat berlakunya kemalangan adalah dipertikaikan oleh Defendan Ketiga. Tiada bukti kemalangan telah berlaku di lokasi material iaitu susur masuk SKVE, memandangkan tiada bukti langsung daipada Pegawai Penyiasat. Rajah kasar dan kunci rajah kasar juga tidak menunjukkan kesan kemalangan. 9.4.Tiada bukti kerosakan motorsikal dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa, Pegawai Penyiasat hanya ditunjukkan gambar motorsikal melalui whatsapp. 9.5.Keterangan Defendan yang telah menukar cerita dan versi kemalangan, apabila beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif versi kemalangan adalah berlainan tetapi apabila beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Defendan, versi yang berlainan pula diberikan. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 10.Mahkamah meneliti keterangan-keterangan saksi Plaintif dan Defendan dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan juga kes BK-A53KJ- 305-11/2020 kerana kes-kes ini telah digabungkan dan didengar bersama. 11.Keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat 11.1Pegawai Penyiasat telah menyatakan bahawa kemalangan berlaku pada 26.3.2016. Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah membuat laporan polis pertama pada 26.4.2016 yang menyatakan kemalangan berlaku pada 27.3.2016 dan beliau membuat laporan kedua pula pada 7.6.2016 untuk menukar tarikh kemalangan kepada 26.3.2016. 11.2.Manakala Plaintif (Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya) telah membuat laporan polis pertama pada 25.4.2016 dan laporan polis kedua juga pada tarikh 7.6.2016 seperti Zail bin Badrol Hisham. Beza jarak masa antara laporan pembetuan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama hanya 10 minit. 11.3Pegawai Penyiasat bersetuju, agak mencurigakan apabila kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama datang bersama-sama ke Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis. 11.4 Pegawai Penyiasat juga menyatakan bahawa beliau ke tempat kejadian dengan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya pada 26.4.2016 iaitu sebulan selepas kononnya kemalangan berlaku. 11.5 Gambar tempat kejadian ekshibit P5 (a) tempat kejadian menunjukkan gambar dari arah Klang-Banting menuju masuk ke Tol Panglima Garang. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 11.6 Walaupun laporan polis dibuat oleh pihak-pihak adalah lewat, Pegawai Penyiasat tidak berjumpa dengan pihak berkenaan di SKVE, bagi menyasiat kesahihan tempat kemalangan dan sama ada kemalangan ada berlaku. 11.7 Mahkamah mendapati bahawa, walaupun Pegawai Penyiasat telah dipanggil sebagai saksi pada 3.5.2021 dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287- 12/2018 dan diperiksa balas oleh Peguam Defendan Ketiga, beliau masih tidak meneruskan siasatan dengan berjumpa pegawai di SKVE Holdings apabila menerima sapina untuk datang sekali lagi dalam perbicaraan tuntutan silang, bagi menentukan penglibatan kedua-dua motorsikal dalam kemalangan. 11.8 Pegawai Penyiasat juga menyatakan bahawa beliau melihat motorsikal BEV8040 pada 26.4.2021 hanya setelah dibaiki. Pegawai Penyiasat ini juga hanya melihat motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham melalui aplikasi whatsapp di telefon bimbit. 11.9 Mahkamah mengambil kira keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat ini yang menyatakan bahawa, beliau bersetuju bahawa tidak ada apa-apa bukti yang menunjukkan motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham dan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya ada berlanggar antara satu sama lain. 11.10 Pegawai Penyiasat juga bersetuju dengan cadangan Peguam Defendan Ketiga dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 bahawa berdasarkan Laporan Perubatan, motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah terbabas dan jatuh sendiri. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 11.11 Pegawai Penyiasat ini juga dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak pasti sama ada motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham ada berlanggar dengan motorsikal Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya. 12.Keterangan saksi dari SKVE Holdings Sdn Bhd- Ismayatem bin Idris Saksi ini adalah Ketua Unit Keselamatan Trafik di SKVE Holdings pada masa kejadian. Beliau telah mengemukakan Operation Log Sheet dikemukakan sebagai ekshibit D1. Beliau menyatakan bahawa pada 26.3.2016, anggota patrol melaporkan kepada beliau bahawa terdapat kemalangan yang berlaku lebih kurang jam 1.37 pagi di KM 21 hala timur yang melibatkan motorsikal No. BFL 7031 dan motorsikal BGV8040 di mana kedua-dua motorsikal telah melanggar serpihan tayar lori. Beliau juga mengesahkan perkara-perkara berikut: a.Kemalangan tersebut berlaku di jalan susur masuk menuju ke Plaza Tol Saujana Putra Lebuhraya SKVE; b.Berdasarkan rekod SKVE, tiada kemalangan berlaku pada 26.3.2016 jam 1.45 pagi di jalan susur menuju Plaza Tol Teluk Panglima Garang; c.Jarak di antara Plaza Tol Saujana Putra dengan Plaza Tol Teluk Panglima Garang adalah lebih kurang 2 kilometer; d.Tempat kejadian yang dilakarkan dalam rajah kasar dan kunci adalah bukan tempat kemalangan yang dirujuk dalam kes ini, iaitu susur keluar ke Plaza Tol Saujana Putra; 13.Keterangan Zail bin Badrol Hisham Zail bin Badrol Hisham telah memberikan keterangan sebanyak 2 kali, iaitu sebagai Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan sebagai Defendan pada 4.11.2022 di dalam tuntutan silang iaitu no kes. A53KJ- 305-11/2020 S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Berikut adalah keterangan beliau sebagai Plaintif dalam kes A53KJ-287- 12/2018 pada 3.5.2021: a. Di selekoh susur masuk Lebuhraya SKVE, motorsikal BGV8040 muncul dari arah belakang lalu memotong dan berhenti hadapan beliau secara mengejut. Oleh kerana terlalu dekat, beliau melanggar belakang motorsikal tersebut; b. Beliau hanya ingat kejadian berlaku di jalan susur masuk. Itu sahaja memori tentang kejadian yang beliau ingat; c. Cuma ingat sebuah motorsikal warna ungu memotong beliau dan tukar haluan secara tiba-tiba; d. Beliau tidak pasti berlaku di kemalangan di lorong kecemasan atau di lencongan susur masuk; Berikut adalah keterangan beliau sebagai Defendan di dalam tuntutan silang: a. Terdapat sebuah motorsikal memotong beliau di jalan susur masuk menuju Lebuhraya SKVE, motorsikal itu kemudian melanggar satu objek di lorong kanan, hilang kawalan dan jatuh di depan beliau yang menunggang di lorong kanan. b. Beliau tidak tahu tentang objek tersebut sebelum ini. Hanya tahu melalui rakan beliau yang bernama Fairuz yang kononnya saksi kemalangan, tetapi tidak membuat laporan polis berkenaan perkara ini; c. Beliau menafikan Fairuz adalah rekaan; d. Beliau juga menyatakan tidak pasti kemalangan berlaku di jalan susur menuju ke SKVE atau lorong kecemasan Lebuhraya SKVE; S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 e. Beliau menafikan bahawa beliau sengaja tidak memberitahu tentang objek tersebut semasa memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif; f. Beliau menafikan bahawa beliau menukar versi beliau apabila mengetahui pihak insurans mengesyaki ada penipuan dalam tuntutannya; g. Beliau mengakui di dalam kedua-dua laporan polisnya, beliau mengatakan kemalangan berlaku di selekoh susur masuk; h. Beliau menafikan bahawa motorsikal BGV 8040 sentiasa berada di depan motorsikalnya; i. Beliau juga menafikan, bahawa beliau melanggar belakang motorsikal BGV 8040. 14.Berdasarkan keterangan Zail bin Badrol Hisham tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa adalah jelas beliau telah memberikan keterangan yang berbeza tentang bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Hanya setelah beliau memberi keterangan sebagai Defendan, beliau telah mengubah versi kemalangan dan menyatakan bahawa motorsikal BGV8040 melanggar satu objek di atas jalan, sama seperti kandungan Traffic Management Centre Operation Log Sheet dari SKVE Holdings. 15.Keterangan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya 15.1 Dalam kes A53KJ-287-12/2018 Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya tidak memberikan keterangan kerana beliau tidak hadir di Mahkamah. Penghakiman Interlokutori telah dimasukkan terhadap beliau dan penghakiman tersebut tidak pernah diketepikan. Namun begitu, pada 25.7.2022 beliau telah memberi keterangan sebagai Plaintif di dalam tuntutan silang bagi kes ini iaitu kes no. BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 15.2Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan beliau tersebut. Berikut adalah keterangan beliau: Beliau menyatakan bahawa kemalangan dengan motorsikal BFL7031 berlaku di jalan susur masuk menuju Lebuhraya SKVE. Motorsikal BFL 7031 tersebut melanggar belakang motorsikalnya.Beliau tidak ingat perkara lain selepas perlanggaran kecuali beliau dilanggar dari belakang. 15.3 Apabila beliau membuat laporan polis pada 25.4.2016, beliau dibawa oleh seorang yang bernama Encik Syed yang beliau tidak tahu nama penuh, pekerjaan dan umur Encik Syed. Beliau tidak ingat bagaimana beliau dan Zail bin Badrol Hisham bersama-sama berada di Balai Polis semasa membuat laporan pembetulan tarikh kemalangan. 15.4 Beliau juga menafikan yang beliau terlibat dalam kemalangan dengan sebuah lori sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Laporan Perubatan. 15.5 Beliau bersetuju bahawa apabila beliau diperiksa oleh semua doktor pakar yang merawat beliau, beliau menyatakan tidak ingat apa- apa bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Beliau juga bersetuju, pihak yang pertama sampai di tempat kemalangan mempunyai maklumat yang tepat tentang kemalangan. 15.6 Hasil pemerhatian Mahkamah terhadap keterangan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya (Plaintif dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020) adalah jelas beliau berdolak-dalih dalam keterangannya. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa, semasa sesi pemeriksaan balas, dapat dilihat S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 beliau sukar menjawab soalan, mudah marah dengan soalan yang ditanya dan enggan menjawab beberapa soalan. Beliau tidak ingat apa-apa tentang kemalangan ketika bertemu dengan doktor-doktor yang memeriksanya, tetapi memberi versi dilanggar dari belakang di dalam laporan polisnya. Beliau juga tidak dapat memastikan motorsikal mana yang telah melanggar belakang motorsikalnya. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH 16. Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan saksi dalam kes BK-A53KJ- 287-12/2018 dan juga kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Mahkamah mendapati bahawa: 16.1.Pegawai Penyiasat tidak memeriksa motorsikal Zail bin Badrol Hisham dan hanya menerima gambar motorsikal tersebut melalui aplikasi whatsapp. Beliau juga tidak melihat kerosakan motorsikal Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya, setelah sebulan lebih selepas kemalangan, beliau hanya melihat motorsikal Muhammad Zairul dan “assume” motorsikal tersebut telah dibaiki. Tidak ada apa-apa bukti yang menunjukkan perlanggaran di antara kedua-dua motorsikal. 16.2.Kedua-dua pihak membuat laporan polis lewat sebulan dari tarikh kemalangan, menyatakan tarikh yang salah dan sama-sama datang ke Balai Polis untuk membuat laporan polis pembetulan pada tarikh yang sama dengan perbezaan 10 minit sahaja. 16.3.Laporan Operation Log Sheet dari SKVE menunjukkan kemalangan pada tarikh 26.3.2016 jam 0129 hours disebabkan kedua- dua motorsikal melanggar serpihan tayar lori yang jatuh di atas lebuhraya dan terjatuh. Perkara ini disokong oleh gambar yang S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 dilampirkan di dalam Log Sheet tersebut yang menunjukkan lokasi di KM21.0 melibatkan motorsikal berwarna merah No. BGV 8040 dan disebelahnya terdapat serpihan tayar lori. Terdapat sebuah lagi motorsikal berwarna silver. Laporan itu juga menyatakan dua orang cedera parah. 16.4.Laporan Perubatan pula menyatakan Plaintiff (Zail) “was riding a motorcycle and skidded”dan menurut doktor, informasi ini diperolehi daripada Plaintiff (Zail) sendiri yang “alert and conscious”. 16.5.Pegawai Penyiasat yang menyediakan rajah kasar yang tidak konsisten dengan tempat kemalangan seperti yang dinyatakan oleh pihak-pihak dan juga oleh saksi dari pihak SKVE. 16.6.Zail bin Badrol Hisham memberikan versi yang berbeza untuk kes tuntutannya (BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018) dan untuk tuntutan silang (BK- A53KJ-305-11/2020) sebagai Defendan Pertama. 16.7.Muhammad Zairul sebagai Plaintif di dalam tuntutan silangnya memberikan keterangan yang berdolak-dalik dan mengelak daripada menjawab soalan. 17. Berdasarkan percanggahan keterangan yang amat ketara tersebut, Mahkamah memutuskan untuk menolak tuntutan Plaintif (Zail bin Badrol Hisham) dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan Muhammad Zairul bin Yahya dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020. Mahkamah mendapati, terdapat unsur penipuan/fraud dalam kedua- dua kes ini. Defendan Ketiga dalam kes BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 dan Defendan Ketiga dalam kes BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 telah berjaya di S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 atas imbangan kebarangkalian membuktikan terdapat unsur penipuan di dalam tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Ketiga. 18.Keputusan Mahkamah bagi kes no.: BK-A53KJ-287-12/2018 Setelah meneliti keterangan semua saksi bersama eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan dan setelah meneliti hujahan bertulis pihak-pihak bersama autoriti yang dikemukakan, di bawah imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Plaintif telah gagal untuk membuktikan penglibatan motorsikal No. BGV8040 dalam kemalangan dengan motorsikal Plaintif. Defendan Ketiga berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. Namun demikian, sekiranya Defendan-Defendan didapati bertanggungan terhadap kemalangan ini atas dasar 100% bertanggungan, kadar gantirugi adalah seperti berikut: KUANTUM A) Gantirugi Am Atas Dasar 100% Liabiliti – a) Closed right prieto occipital fracture & fracture of right petrous temporal bone & multiple intracranial bleeding – RM20,000.00 b) Closed fracture left calcaneal & left calcaneum Kecederaan yang sama – RM13,000.00 c) Distal phalange left big toe – Ditolak S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 B) Gantirugi Khas Atas Dasar 100% Liabiliti – a) Kos carian JPJ - RM10.00 b) Kos laporan perubatan Hospital Serdang- RM40.00 c) Kos laporan perubatan Hospital KPJ Klang - RM604.20 d) Kos laporan polis -RM40.00 e) Kos perbelanjaan keluarga melawat Plaintif di Hospital Serdang - RM200.00 (RM100.00 X 2 hari) f) Kos rawatan pesakit luar d Hospital Serdang - RM300.00 (RM100.00 X 3) g) Kos rawatan pesakit luar di Hospital KPJ Klang - RM150.00 (RM50.00 X 3) FAEDAH (a) Faedah bagi jumlah yang ditetapkan dalam keputusan pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh keputusan sehingga ke tarikh pembayaran; Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah ganti rugi khas dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga ke tarikh penghakiman; dan (b) Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah penghakiman dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh pembayaran penuh. (c) Kos tindakan mengikut skala yang diperuntukkan di bawah Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. (d) Atas persetujuan Plaintif, jumlah penghakiman dimasukkan ke dalam akaun pelanggan Tetuan M Manoharan & Co. untuk dibayar kepada Plaintif. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 19. Keputusan bagi kes no.: BK-A53KJ-305-11/2020 Setelah meneliti keterangan semua saksi bersama eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan dan setelah meneliti hujahan bertulis pihak-pihak bersama autoriti yang dikemukakan, di bawah imbangan kebarangkalian, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. Defendan Ketiga berjaya membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa terdapat unsur penipuan (fraud) di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. Namun demikian, sekiranya Defendan-Defendan didapati bertanggungan terhadap kemalangan ini atas dasar 100% bertanggungan, kadar gantirugi adalah seperti berikut: Kuantum: A.Gantirugi am atas dasar 100% liabiliti: a.Severe head injury with right fronto-parietal intraparenchymal bleed and fracture of right frontal bone, temporal bone, right lateral wall of orbit, right zygomatic arch fracture and left palatal split - RM81,000.00 b.Right eye periorbital hematoma with traumatic mydriasis – RM30,000.00 c.Closed fracture right midshaft clavicle -RM18,000.00 d.Closed fracture right midshaft humerus -RM15,000.00 (minus 10% overlapping) -RM29,700.00 e.T2 spinous process fracture -RM15,000.00 f.Multiple abrasion wounds -RM3000.00 g.Scars -RM8000.00 JUMLAH -RM166,700.00 B.Gantirugi Khas atas dasar 100% liabiliti a.Kerosakan pakaian - Ditolak S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 b.Perbelanjaan kenderaan -Ditolak c.Kos laporan perubatan -RM28.00 d.Kos laporan polis -RM39.00 e.Laporan RIMV -RM10.00 f.Kerosakan motorsikal -Ditolak g.Kos rawatan -Ditolak h.Bil hospital -Ditolak i.Kehilangan pendapatan sebenar -Ditolak j.Kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan -Ditolak k.Kos kaki/tangan palsu dan kos menyelenggaranya -Ditolak l.Kos nursing care -Ditolak m.Rawatan susulan/ masa hadapan -Ditolak n.Kos kerusi roda/tongkat -Ditolak o.Perbelanjaan oleh keluarga untuk melawat di hospital pada kadar RM50.00 satu perjalanan sebanyak 10 trip - p.Bayaran bagi Plaintif untuk mendapatkan rawatan pesakit luar -RM50.00 perjalanan Item O dan P -RM300.00 r.Kos makanan khasiat -Ditolak Item-item yang ditolak atas alasan tiada bil dan resit rasmi dikemukakan atau saksi dipanggil bagi membuktikannya. Faedah: a.Faedah tahunan ke atas gantirugi am sebanyak 5% dari tarikh penyerahan saman sehingga penghakiman; b.Faedah tahunan ke atas gantirugi khas sebanyak 2.5% dari tarikh kemalangan sehingga penghakiman; dan S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 c.Faedah tahunan ke atas jumlah penghakiman sebanyak 5% dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh pembayaran. Kos tindakan adalah mengikut skala yang diperuntukkan di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Jumlah penghakiman dimasukkan ke dalam akaun pelanggan Tetuan Abdul Rahim & Co. untuk dibayar kepada Plaintif. tt. AHMAD RIZKI BIN ABDUL JALIL Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen 11 Januari 2024. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Peguam Plaintif: Tetuan Abdul Rahim & Co. Kuala Lumpur. Peguam Defendan Pertama dan Kedua: Tetuan Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong Kuala Lumpur. Peguam Defendan Ketiga: Tetuan M. Ravendran & Associates. Ampang, Selangor. S/N wAJcC2ifzkqL3hilX5CbWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24NCvC-373-02/2022

PEMOHON VISTA FAJAR SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) JMB MENARA RAJAWALI 2. ) DENFLOW TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

The Plaintiff relied on the case of Muhamad Nazri Bin Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor, [2019] 10 CLJ 547 (CA), [2018] 9 CLJ 547 (HC) (Muhamad Nazri’s case) stating that the Defendants in Muhamad Nazri’s case were also the same Defendants as in this Originating Summons (OS) and that the issues were also the same. Thus, the decision in Muhamad Nazri’s case must be complied with by the Defendants in this suit, pursuant to section 143(3) of the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA).The Plaintiff contended that-(a) The 1st Defendant has imposed a single rate of maintenance charges of RM2.80 per share unit on the 2nd Defendant’s parcel(s) starting from 1.10.2019 onwards only;(b) The 1st Defendant has failed, refused and/or neglected to impose, adjust and/or regularize the single rate of maintenance charges of RM2.80 per share unit on the 2nd Defendant’s maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for the period from 1.8.2016 to 30.9.2019 and 10% interest per annum for the said period; and(c) The 1st Defendant has failed, refused and/or neglected to impose the 10% interest per annum on any of the 2nd Defendant’s outstanding maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for the recent period from 1.10.2019 onwards. The Defendants contended that they have complied accordingly to the Order of the Court of Appeal in Muhamad Nazri’s case and also questioned the locus standi of the Plaintiff to bring the claim.

10/01/2024

YA Dr Suzana binti Muhamad Said

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3b870e27-53fe-4f9e-94c3-12555458fa73&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCvC-373-02/2022 In the matter of Sections 8, 17, 21, 22, 25, 26, 62 and 143 of the Strata Management Act 2013 And In the matter of the First and Second Schedules of the Strata Management Act 2013 And In the matter of the Court of Appeal Order dated 4.10.2019 granted in Civil Appeal No. W- 02(NCVC)(A)-2057-10/2018 BETWEEN VISTA FAJAR SDN BHD (Company No.: 651314-K) … PLAINTIFF AND 1. JMB MENARA RAJAWALI (Registration No: MPSJ.COB.BP1-89) 2. DENFLOW TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD (Company No: 1027535-T) … DEFENDANTS 10/01/2024 10:38:03 WA-24NCvC-373-02/2022 Kand. 133 S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The Plaintiff claims against the Defendants for the following prayers- 1. A declaration that the 1st Defendant has breached and/or failed to comply with Prayers 3 and 4 of the Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No.: WA-24NCvC-186-0l/2018 ("OS") which was allowed by the Court of Appeal Order dated 4.10.2019 granted in Civil Appeal No. W- 02(NCVC)(A)-2057-10/2018 ("Court of Appeal Order"); 2. An order that the 1st Defendant (through its Joint Management Committee ("JMC") members, building managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in-title) shall impose a single rate of maintenance charges of RM2.80 per share unit on the 2nd Defendant's car park parcels in Menara Rajawali for the period from 1.8.2016 to 30.9.2019 pursuant to the Court of Appeal Order which allowed Prayer 3 of the OS; 3. An order that the 1st Defendant (through its JMC members, building managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in- title) shall impose a 10% interest per annum on the 2nd Defendant's outstanding maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for the period of 1.8.2016 to 30.9.2019 pursuant to the Court of Appeal Order which allowed Prayer 3 of the OS; 4. An order that the 1st Defendant (through its JMC members, building managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in- title) shall impose a 10% interest per annum on the 2nd Defendant's outstanding maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for the period from 1.10.2019 onwards (if any) pursuant to the Court of Appeal Order which allowed Prayer 4 of the OS; 5. An order that the 1st Defendant (through its JMC members, building S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in- title) shall (i) recalculate, regularize and update the 2nd Defendant's maintenance and sinking fund accounts and balances based on the single rate of maintenance charges of RM2.80 per share unit and 10% interest per annum as ordered by this Court in paragraphs 2 to 4 above, and thereafter (ii) provide to the 2nd Defendant its respective parcel(s)' updated statement(s) of account, within 14 days from the date of service of this judgment; 6. An order that the 1st Defendant (through its JMC members, building managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in- title) shall within 21 days from the date of service of this judgment, file and serve on the Plaintiff an affidavit verifying the details and documentary evidence of the 1st Defendant's compliance with paragraphs 2 and 5 above; 7. A declaration and order that prior to the 1st Defendant's full compliance with paragraphs 2 to 6 above, the 2nd Defendant shall remain in default of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions owed to the 1st Defendant and therefore: 7.1. Is not entitled to vote in any general meetings of the 1st Defendant; and 7.2. Is not eligible to have its representatives elected as JMC members. 8. An order that the 1st Defendant (through its JMC members, building managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in- title) shall make its book of accounts (including but not limited to accounts and records of accounts as will sufficiently explain the transactions of the accounts and enable true and fair balance sheet, income and expenditure statement and profit and loss statement to be prepared) available for inspection by the Plaintiff within 7 days from the date of service of this judgment; 8A A declaration that the 1st Defendant's 5th AGM held on 25.6.2022 and all resolutions approved at the 5th AGM dated 25.6.2022 are unlawful, null and void ab initio (save that the joint management committee members appointed at the 1st Defendant's 5th AGM shall continue in office and be deemed to resign at the reconvened 5th AGM pursuant to paragraph 8C below): S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 8B A declaration that any other general meeting convened by the 1st Defendant between 25.6.2022 until the date of this judgment and all resolutions approved at such general meetings, if any, are unlawful, null and void ab initio; 8C An order that the 1st Defendant shall reconvene its 5th AGM within 30 days from the date of service of this judgment and at the reconvened 5th AGM propose and vote on the resolutions which were proposed at the general meetings stated in paragraphs 8A and 8B above; 9. An order that personal service of this judgment on the 1st Defendant's JMC members be dispensed with and that this judgment be effected by serving a copy of the sealed judgment addressed to each JMC member at the 1st Defendant's registered address and 1st Defendant's solicitors' address of service; 10. An order that personal service of this judgment on the 2nd Defendant's directors be dispensed with and that this judgment be effected by way of service on the 2nd Defendant's solicitors and by posting a copy of the judgment to the 2nd Defendant's directors at their address as registered with the Companies Commission of Malaysia by way of certificate of posting; 11. Costs; 12. That parties shall be at liberty to apply for further and necessary orders and/or directions; and 13. Any other and/or further relief that deems fit and just. BRIEF FACTS The Parties [2] Menara Rajawali is a mixed strata development comprising residential, retail and car park parcels. There are approximately 208 S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 parcel owners in Menara Rajawali. [3] The Plaintiff is the parcel owner of Units A-01-2, A-02-2 and A-02- 3 in Menara Rajawali. [4] The 1st Defendant is the Joint Management Body (JMB) of Menara Rajawali. [5] The 2nd Defendant is the parcel owner of 242 car park units located in the Basement Level and Levels 1 to 6 in Menara Rajawali. The 2nd Defendantʼs car park units comprise of 6,267 share units. This represents 27% of the total share units in Menara Rajawali. Maintenance charges rate [6] At the 1st Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the 1st Defendant on 25.6.2016, by resolution, mandate was given to the Joint Management Committee (JMC) to fix maintenance charges for: (a) Residential and retail units at a rate of not more than RM3.26 per share unit; (b) Car park units at a rate not more than RM1.68 per share unit. S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [7] At the 3rd JMC Meeting on 12.8.2016, the JMC fixed the maintenance charges rate for: (a) Residential and retails units at a rate of RM2.80 per share unit; and (b) Car park units of a rate of RM1.68 per share unit. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION [8] The Plaintiff relied on the case of Muhamad Nazri Bin Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor, [2019] 10 CLJ 547 (CA), [2018] 9 CLJ 547 (HC) (Muhamad Nazri’s case) stating that the Defendants in Muhamad Nazri’s case were also the same Defendants as in this Originating Summons (OS) and that the issues were also the same. Thus, the decision in Muhamad Nazri’s case must be complied with by the Defendants in this suit, pursuant to section 143(3) of the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA). [9] The Plaintiff contended that- (a) The 1st Defendant has imposed a single rate of maintenance charges of RM2.80 per share unit on the 2nd Defendant’s parcel(s) starting from 1.10.2019 onwards only; S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (b) The 1st Defendant has failed, refused and/or neglected to impose, adjust and/or regularize the single rate of maintenance charges of RM2.80 per share unit on the 2nd Defendant’s maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for the period from 1.8.2016 to 30.9.2019 and 10% interest per annum for the said period; and (c) The 1st Defendant has failed, refused and/or neglected to impose the 10% interest per annum on any of the 2nd Defendant’s outstanding maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for the recent period from 1.10.2019 onwards. [10] The Plaintiff further contended that the Defendants have failed to comply with the Order of the Court of Appeal in Muhamad Nazri’s case. [11] The Plaintiff also contended that pursuant to paragraph 21(2) of the Second Schedule of SMA, the 2nd Defendant shall not be entitled to vote in any general meetings of the 1st Defendant because it is in arrears of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions. S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [12] Further, pursuant to paragraph 2(9) of the Second Schedule of SMA, the 2nd Defendant shall not be eligible to have its representative elected as a member of the JMC because it is in arrears of the maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions. DEFENDANTS’ CONTENTION [13] The Defendants contended that they have complied accordingly to the Order of the Court of Appeal in Muhamad Nazri’s case and also questioned the locus standi of the Plaintiff to bring the claim. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Locus Standi [14] Section 143(3) of the SMA provides for representations in proceedings- “143. Representation in proceedings (2) Where all or some of the parcel owners or proprietors of the parcels in a development area— (a) are jointly entitled to take proceedings for or with respect to the common property in that development area against any person or are liable to have such proceedings taken against them jointly; or (b) are jointly entitled to take proceedings for or with respect to any limited common property in that development area against any person or are liable to have such proceedings taken S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 against them jointly, the proceedings may be taken— (a) in the case of paragraph (2)(a), by or against the joint management body or management corporation; or (b) in the case of paragraph (2)(b), the subsidiary management corporation constituted for that limited common property, as if the joint management body, management corporation or subsidiary management corporation, as the case may be, were the parcel owners or the proprietors of the parcels concerned. (3) Any judgment or order given or made in favour of or against the joint management body, management corporation or subsidiary management corporation, as the case may be, in any proceedings referred to in subsection (2) shall have effect as if it were a judgment or an order given or made in favour of or against the parcel owners or the proprietors, as the case may be.” (Emphasis added) [15] Thus, based on this provision, this Court finds that the Plaintiff as parcels owner, has locus standi to commence and pursue this action against the Defendants. [16] Further, in the case of 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square & Ors; Yong Shang Ming (Third Party) [2018] 4 CLJ 458 (HC) the Court deliberated on section 143(3) of the SMA and held that the judgment against the management corporation takes effect as though it was a judgment against a proprietor that is liable S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 to make contributions- “[126] Section 143(4)(a) prescribes the manner in which a proprietor is liable to make contributions where another proprietor has successfully obtained judgment against the management corporation. By s. 143(3), the judgment against the management corporation takes effect as though it was a judgment against the proprietors personally. The proportion of contribution is determined based on the proportion of share units held by a proprietor as a fraction of the total share units in the development area.”. [17] In Muhamad Nazri’s case, it was held that- “[38] There is also no provision under the SMA 2013 and the STA 1985 which empowers the JMB to fix different rates for different types of parcels. In contrast, such a power is expressly conferred on a MC in respect of 2 specific situations, (i) parcels which are used for significantly different purposes, and (ii) provisional blocks; sub-section 60(3)(b) of the SMA 2103. Therefore, if Parliament had intended for the JMB to have the power to fix different rates of maintenance charges, that intention would have been clearly reflected in the provisions of the SMA 2013; and because there is no such provision it must have been Parliament's presumed intention and wisdom not to confer such power on the JMB.”. [18] It was also held in Muhamad Nazri’s case that- (10) The fact that JMB’s resolution was carried by a unanimous vote did not make it legal and valid for the JMB and JMC to fix and collect S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 the different rates of the maintenance charges. The JMB as a body corporate under statute could only determine charges which were mandated under the SMA 2013. It would be ultra vires the SMA 2013 for the JMB and the JMC to fix and impose the different rates which were not sanctioned by statute. Further, the JMB did not have the inherent power nor could it arrogate to itself such power, even if the approval was obtained in a unanimous resolution at the AGM. The JMB's Resolution and the JMC's Decision should be set aside for being invalid, null and void. [19] The Court of Appeal in allowing Muhamad Nazriʼs appeal (see [2020] 3 MLJ 645), expressly held that- “Decision [15] The main thrust of the plaintiffʼs argument is twofold. One, the second defendant is enjoying a double discount on his share of contribution of the maintenance charges. This argument is premised on the ground that the allocation of share units to every parcel owner has already taken into account the types of parcels, frequency of usage and general maintenance of the common property, whole floor parcel including or excluding area of vertical transportation core, and accessory parcels inside or outside building. Since the share value of the second defendant has already factored in the weightages, fixing a lower rate of maintenance charges for the car park units as opposed to a standard rate for all types of parcels would in effect be giving the second defendant a double discount. Two, the provisions of the SMA 2013 cannot be read as giving the JMB and the JMC the power to determine different rates of maintenance charges for different parcels. … S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [27] We therefore take the view that on a proper construction of the said sections, the JMB is required to determine and fix only a single rate of maintenance charges to be applied to all types of parcels in proportion to the allocated share units. Accordingly, we do not think that the JMBʼs resolution in fixing different rates for different types of parcels is in conformity with ss. 21 and 25 of the SMA 2013 … [41] For the foregoing reasons, the JMBʼs resolution and the JMCʼs decision are hereby set aside for being invalid, null and void. The order of the High Court is set aside. We therefore allow prayers 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the originating summons. The appeal is allowed with costs.” (Emphasis added) [20] Pursuant to paragraph 21(2), Second Schedule of the SMA, the 2nd Defendant shall not be entitled to vote in any general meetings of the 1st Defendant because it is in arrears of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions: “21. Voting rights of proprietor (2) A proprietor shall not be entitled to vote if, on the seventh day before the date of the meeting, all or any part of the Charges, or contribution to the sinking fund, or any other money due and payable to the management corporation in respect of his parcel are in arrears.” [21] Accordingly, paragraph 2(9), Second Schedule of the SMA, the 2nd Defendant shall not be eligible to have its representative elected as a member of the JMC because it is in arrears of maintenance charges and S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 sinking fund contributions: “(9) Notwithstanding subparagraph (7), an individual referred to in that subparagraph shall not be eligible for election as a member of the management committee of a management corporation if, on the seventh day before the date of election- (a) where he is a proprietor or co-proprietor of a parcel, all or any part of the Charges, or contribution to the sinking fund, in respect of that parcel are in arrears; (b) where he is nominated for election by a proprietor of a parcel which is a company, society, statutory body or any other body, all or any part of the Charges, or contribution to the sinking fund, in respect of that parcel are in arrears; or (c) where he is a member of the immediate family of a proprietor who owns two or more parcels and is nominated for election by that proprietor, all or any part of the Charges, or contribution to the sinking fund, in respect of any parcel are in arrears.” [22] In Badan Pengurusan Bersama Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon v Paradise Boulevard Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 1224, it was held that the SMA is unmistakable in prescribing that parcel owners who have not fully paid maintenance and other charges to the JMB shall not be entitled to vote at a general meeting of the JMB: “[31] The statute is unmistakable in prescribing that parcel owners who have not fully paid maintenance and other charges in respect of their parcels to the committee of the JMB shall not be entitled to vote at a general meeting of the JMB. That is the consequence for non-payment as prescribed by statute.” S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [23] Further, pursuant to Paragraph 2(6), Second Schedule of the SMA, representative shall not hold office for more than three consecutive terms- “(6) All the members of the management committee of a management corporation shall retire from office at the conclusion of the next annual general meeting. A retiring member of the management committee shall be eligible for re-election but no member of the management committee shall hold office for more than three consecutive terms.” [24] In terms of inspection of the account books, this Court finds that the Plaintiff as a parcel owner in Menara Rajawali has the right to do so as provided under paragraph 7(6), Second Schedule of the SMA- “7. Keeping of records and accounts of management corporation (6) The management committee shall- cause to be prepared such accounts and records of accounts as will sufficiently explain the transactions of the accounts and enable true and fair balance sheet, income and expenditure statement and profit and loss statement to be prepared; and on the application of a proprietor or chargee of a parcel or a proprietor of a provisional block (or any person authorized in writing by him), make the books of accounts available for inspection during office hours of the management corporation, at a fee not exceeding fifty ringgit for each inspection.”. S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 CONCLUSION [25] Based on the foregoing reasons, this Court granted the following Orders- 1. The 1st Defendant (through its Joint Management Committee ("JMC") members, building managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in-title) shall impose a single rate of maintenance charges of RM2.80 per share unit on the 2nd Defendant's car park parcels in Menara Rajawali for the period from 1.8.2016 to 30.9.2019; 2. The 1st Defendant (through its JMC members, building managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in-title) shall impose a 10% interest per annum on the 2nd Defendant's outstanding maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for the period of 1.8.2016 to 30.9.2019; 3. The 1st Defendant (through its JMC members, building managers, employees, agents, administrators and/or successors-in-title) shall impose a 10% interest per annum on S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 the 2nd Defendant's outstanding maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for the period from 1.10.2019 onwards; 4. Prayers 5, 6, 7, 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, 9, 10 & 11 of the OS are allowed including cost of RM12,000 subject to allocator's fee to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendants jointly and severally. (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER NCVC 1 KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT Dated: 4 January 2024 S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 COUNSELS For the Plaintiff Mah Weng Kwai & Associates Level 10-1, Tower B, Menara Prima Jalan PJU 1/39, Dataran Prima 47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. For the Defendants Onn & Partners 13, Jalan Kemuja Off Jalan Bangsar 59000 Kuala Lumpur S/N Jw6HO/5TnkUwxJVVFj6cw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-14-29-11/2022

PERAYU Impressive Edge Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Revenue Law — Income Tax — Revenue issued Notices of Non-Chargeability (“NONC”) for YAs 2006 to 2009 and Notices of Additional Assessment (“NAA”) to the appellant - Appeal to Special Commissioners of Income Tax (‘SCIT’) — Whether SCIT came to perverse verdict on taxpayer’s appeal Revenue Law — Income tax — Assessment — Revenue assessed income tax payable by taxpayer —Whether NONC and NAA issued by Revenue time-barred — Whether Revenue had proved negligence against taxpayer – Whether an error in claiming Reinvestment Allowance without more is sufficient to establish negligence

10/01/2024

YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4bbfa36a-a8fc-4cfb-8dc9-e1bda548f3c2&Inline=true

10/01/2024 12:24:02 WA-14-29-11/2022 Kand. 29 S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aqO/S/yo0yNyeG9pUjzwg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—1d—29—11/2022 Kand. 29 1n/01/2024 12:2u-02 DALAM MAHKAMAH TIIIGGI MALAVA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAVAH PERSEKUYUAN KUALA LUMPUR [BAHAGIAN KLIASA-KUASA KHAS) YUAN s 0 w 1|/2022 AMTARA IMPRESSIVE EDGE sou BHD ...PERAvu DAN KEHJA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI ..,RESPDNDEN JIIDGMENT [1] There \s balore me an appeal ansmg from me Deudmq Order anhe Special Comrmssnoner oi monme Tax (“sc\T'), winch was delivered an 25.10.2022. [2] The (actual baaxground Ihal has gwen rise to «ms appea> us as rowows. [31 The appeflanl company manuvacnures engineering spare pans, mould puns. ms pans and premsmn tools (“Engmeenng Fans”). [41 In 20:25, me appeuam cumpany remcated Ks manufaauring actw es mm its previous lamcry at Balu Berendam. Me\aka (‘Previous Factary“) in ils currervIfac|ory ax Taman Teknmcgx Chang m Melaka (“New Factory“). According to me appeuam, the Frevmus Fackzry was used as a warehouse dunng me remcalmn. and some pmduclxon/manuiaclunnq aclwwlies were slill operatmq . IN ms! an s u 1 Nat: smzw ...’§‘§JTF..‘ J52. m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm [5] [6] [7] [el [9] [10] Between the years oi assessment (“vAs'i 2005 to 2008, the appellant asserted that ' had incurred oasis in running and expanding its mantt1tac|ttrii1g business. The appellant then had accordingly claimed ior Retrtveslmartl Ailowanoe (‘RA’) The RA is an incenltve given to Malaysian resident oompe s involved in irie menulactiiring senor, as in the eppeliantoompany, In iiiceritruise these oompanies w reinvest and gmw their ousinesses However. upon audit, ttie Rt3spnm1eriI(‘Revenue"j has disailawed the appellant’: RA claims from VA; 2003 |0 2007 on: (at The pomon oitrie item are; onne appelianfs New Factory is equivalent to the lkmr Ema of the Previous Factory (1 3 aporoirirnateiy 1,059 sq ineteri tor VA 2006 to) certain items include a computer, iron lrame cahirlel and reeling equipmen| (the -Disputed iiernsw Acnoming to the Revenue the claims on RA Disputed Items were disallowed on the ground that the items were not directly inuotved in the production activity on 732016, the Revenue issued Nouoes oi Non-cnargeaoiiity (‘NONC') ior was 2006 to may and Notices oi Additional Assessment ti AA“) and Imposed penalties let the vita 2010 to 2012 Aggneved, on 5 4.2015, the appellant iiled their Motioe oi Appeal in Form Q tor the ‘(As 2006 to 2012 all dated 4 4.2016 Al the scrr W] There are four agreed issues oelore the SCiT. They are as Follows’ Trrne Bar /91 ‘(As 2006 la 201:2 wnetnerthe NONC and NAAlor VA 2005 are time-barred under s 91(3) oithe ITA? issue 1 ru -qfl/SIynflyNnGipUlzwg “Nair s.n.i mmhnrwiii be u... M may i... nflflinaiily MVMI dnuuvinnl VII .nuue mi met me SCIT found the Incorrect Items m the tax return were eyrdence ul tne appellants negllgenae wllllln tne rneanlng at s 91(3)(b)aHJ1e ITA. [41] stnce negligence lras been pmved. time pecame at large and the Revenue was at Irheny lo laisa the NCNC5. [421 taelore me. learned counsellor the appellant submllled nlherwlse. me lrne ol argument is ancnered on tne gmund |ha| an lnuorrec| return dces nol naoessarrly opnstttute negllgence Awordtng to learned counsel one snaultt not be neld liable for rlegllgenoe rt lt ean pe eslabllshed tner ne had acted based an advlos er rnstruclrons wtrtplr ne reasonably balteved were pdnect ln snort tne mere laet mat the appellant may nave made an error rn ttlalmlng RA vnlnoul more ls rrrsumcrent to eslabllsh negligerloe unless rnere ts prool tnat the error was cernnntted neglgerllly Learned counsel ated tne judgment 0! me Hlgh Court in seiwa Podayo St1n Bhd v xetru Purgaren Hull mlerrr M-gertlzozsl 7 MLJ 214 as an authority lur tne atoresard pmpusition [43] ln any event, lne alleged negligence. awarding lp learned counsel. was conlrlpuled by lne Revenue tnemselves Learned counsel contended tnat the audtt exeruse commenced only ln 2015, nlne years arter YA zone The NONCs were only rssued on 7.3.2013 — to years after VA znoet [44] under tne crrcumerances, ttre appellants canlentlan rs mat tne Revenue ls tnerelore pronrlalted (rum s ng lne blame |o tne appellant; MCEI aemad y xetua Ptnglrnl Nrlsil Dalarrr Negeri [ZlJ21]M5TC1D-I30. Perla/ly [451 As to me imposrtrpn o1 penalty. learned counsel lor tne appellant submitted that tne appellant oamparly had taken prolasarenel advlpe. In any event, the tact mat the appellant trad ctalrned RA tor tne nrsputed Items on a dmaring rnterpretatlon ol law and lnat does not luallly the Revenue to lrrtpcse the penalty under s 113(2) or me ITA. rt IN -do/slypnynnsipulzwg «an. s.n.l nuvlhnrwlll r. u... a yaw r... pflnlnnllly sun. dnuuvlnrrl v.. .nuue Wrul [46] For the atoiesaid reasons, iearned eounsei urged this court to allow the rippeai Analysis [47] I will firs! address the issue 94 whether the NONC tor VA: 2005 to 2009 and the NAA tor VA 2010‘ all dated 7 32016. are lime-barred tinder s Q1olIhe\TA [48] To begin with, s wt) of the ITA empcrwers the Revenue to raise an assessment or additional assessment on any person chargeable to lax in that year or within rrve years alter its expiration where it appears to the Revenue that no or no sufficierll assessment has been made an that person [49] eetdre me, the iearned SRO gmdeltilly eoripeded that the additieiiai assessments raised on the appettant exceeded the tive-year ' 'tation period [so] The only issue |o pe delermlned is whether the exceptions under s 91(3) oi the ITA are applicable The te-med sac aiso edrrceded that it is up to the Revenue to esiapiish that the appellant had raiied to exercise the standard 0! care theta reesonapte men would have expected to exercise The burden is. lherelnlei en the Revenue The exceptions neiened ID in s 9I(3j are as tdllows: ti) Fraud: (ii) wirtiit deiatilt; or (M) Negiigenee [51] The learned SEC referred me lo V/H/(Email on /ncome Tax and argued that 'rlsglec|" means negligence at a taiiuie to give any nouce, make any relumi SIEIEUIBM or deciaratmn DY |u produce or hlmlsh any |iS1i document or other inlnrrnatiofl required by the ‘TA [52] Appiying the said propas ' In the tests ot the case, the teamed sac iiirther submitted that the appell-nl claimed RA tor RM5,139,369 in VA 2006 under schedule 7»: at the ITA when the appetient was “nol etigipie ip eleiin tor RA in rtiit fur the New Fadcry". According to the teained sRc, the appellant was given RA 12 IN -do/Slynflq/Nnfiipuizvrg "Nair s.i.i nuvthnrwm be ti... M new i... nflflirrnflly mi. flnulfllnl vn aFiuNG Wm! under para 1 on the Prevlous Factory, wnlcn was first claimed by me appellant HI VA I990 oonsecullvely unlll VA 2003. [53] Lrkewise, me learned SRC ppnlended that the appellant was equllly negllgent when n clamred RA on the Dlspuled llerns when lt knew ll lailed up lulrrl me requlremenls sllpulated ln para may 0! scnedule 7A. [54] wnnl. (hem IS me law? My eansidered mew ls lnal nllng an inpdrrecl mlum wllndur more does nm necessarily constrtule negligence In lntra Quest sdn Ehd v Kama Pengmrr I-Iasil Dalam M-gul [2017] 7 MLJ 35. ldllpwmg a desk audlt, lne Revenue had assessed the tax payable by me appellant was 2003 lo mud. The appellant appealed to me SCIT on me assessment on me gmurld max lne Revenue had claimed Iaxes lpr ‘(As 2003 lo 2004 when lnose assessrnenls were llnreparred The appellsnl runner argued that ll was enmled to claim the capital allowance lmm me ‘(As 2003 lo 2005 lpr me conslrucxron at me lelecclmmunicalion rowers, wnlcn was the main buslness dune eppellanl company. The appellanrs appeal to scrr was dlsrnrssed. [55] Aggrievedl (he appellant appealed to me Hlgh Court [55] the lssues beloie the High Calm were: (8) whether the rlntlces nl assessment Issued by the Revenue (or VA 2003 Ind 2004 (‘me lmpugned nalloes‘) were lime-barred: (pl wnennerrne Revenue had proved neglrgenee ag 1 me appellant‘ and (C) wnemer me appsllanl was enlilled to claim capital allowance. [57] The High Court inlet Ella held that the mere act ol the appellant clal 'ng capital allowances could rlol amount to nagllgerlos The learned Judge than o0ncludw' Harlan ln accordance warn thu drfimllon ol negllgence as prwlded ln the veterencss alluded ta mm, lnn court had found mar In appellzrllllaxpayer had dune dlugenlly whal me llw uped ola laasanahh parspn, and mar me anpellarllllaxparyerflld rlvtvmllto dp samelilnng mar n reauurlabts vevsun wuufl flu‘ [50] Applylrlg (he sald plupusltlonl n AS my considered vlew that at all malenal urnes, lne appellanl sougm advlee lmm ns lax agem. Messrs Ernsl 5. vpung. In snarl. me appellanx ned rlol omllted to do 13 rn msryuwmenpum “Nut: Smnl nuvlhnrwlll .. u... m mm .. nrtnlnnllly Mlhln dnuuvlnrrl _ nFluNG ml samslhlrlg that a leasunable nelson would do. The appellant could not, lneieleie, he said to be negligent. [591 in nis submission‘ tne learneo sac ielieo very neavity on eiiotnei iuegment or me Hign Court in Opus /rltematiorlal. ln trial case, irie Revenue oonducled an audii eiieicise on \he appellani ano luuno nuge dlacrepanaes pelween lne aindunl reported and tiie amount stated in the sales ledger Tne Revenue also louno iiial tlie iwo invoices were noi valid and witnoul pioal wnai IS penineni is lnal lne Revenue lound inai lne llrlpugned proiecl. known as me Malaysiesingapore seoono Cmsslllg1“MSSC“|, had already eeen oompleled in 1997 and 1995 This is so sinoe me Drolecl manager nad slgned lne relevant documents submitted by lne clients in 1997 and 1998. The nndliigs oltne Revenue were amnned by tne SCIT [60] That was the (actual background that led the High Calm Io conclude inai me appellant currlparly was Indeed rlegllgerll. [61] coming baukla ins instentceiie. to my mind‘ once tnelim eoeoiried in s 91(1) ortne ITA nee lapsed, s only reasonable tor a taxpayer lo assume lrial ne is no longer ai risk lioni a stale claim. A Iaxoayer snould inerelore, lie at ' rly to oiecant lrie documents and could not be faulted lei its inaeiliiy lo pioduoe relevant ooeurneiiis on an auoit exeroise by lne Revenue‘ see Yew son Tow v K-nom 5-s Man [1992] 3 All ER we [32] I am nol, euen lei one moinenl. suggesling tne Revenue is noi allowed in carry out me audllexerclsa alieilne lime milzulalad under s 91(1) nae lapseo. It can l-lomeuen ii cannei allege negligence againsi lne taxpayer lor an inaccurate return eliliei in claiming RA ei capital allowanoe. The Revenue needs ii: prove more tnan an Inaccurate reluin It has to eslabllsh a positive and olriegllgenoe, as seen in Opus /nieii-iallonal. opus lnlemarional is Ihelelore distinguisned. Findlnge [33] F0! the reasons almfisalde me SCIT nail ened when it round iliat me Revenue nad managed |o esiaiillsn negligence on me pan at the IDDSIISM and therefore could sack NW9! under S 9113) of the ITA. ru -qfl/SIyuflyNnG9pUlzwg «ma s.n.i nuvlhnrwm be u... m min i... pflnlnnfily MVMI dnuuvlnnl n. .nuua aiiai [54] Since negfigenoe has not been eseabnsned. me assessmams are maralore um:-berm under 5 91(1) [65] ll has been demonstrated that SCIT had erred an a quesuinn of law, resumng m a mamleslermr m the uecmmg Order, wmcn wanzms a mrial mxervemion of ms com. [56] Tmsappeal rs allowed win no order as (D 50515, The Demdmg Order Is lheralme set am. Tarik 1o Januurl 2014 L4 (WAN AHMAD FARID am wm SALLEH) Hakwm Manksmah Tmggx Kuala Lumpur. Fmak-plhak Bag: PM Puvuyu Jason Tan. 4., song Ng Jed: MM mum Lee msuammuuum man I: G\edhiH Bag? Puhuk Reswndan Noov Faauh am. zmm... sac. Mmlrzn Bwm Am warm RC Lemma: nun Dallm Nager1\LHDN)‘Cybnqny-I 15 m -qu/slyunyunmptqzwg «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! issue 2- RA on the rectory building /or VA 2006: Wrielher the appeiiant is entitled to claim RA pursuant lo sctietxuie 7A 01 the Income Tax Act 1967 (“|TA'| in respect oittie capiiai axperidnure incurred in VA 2006? issue: RA (D»spL/I511 Ilams) Ioi VA 2006 to 2008 Whether the appellant is entitied lo claim RA pursuant In Schedule 7A at the ITA with respect to the capital expenditure Incurred in ‘(As 2005 In 2005 on the disputeu nerns. !ssue4 Penalty Whether the Revenue was mrrea in imposing penalttes under s ttatzi of me ITA tar VA: zoto. zott and 20127 on /ssue 1 Time-berm: [12] It is me appellants case that the Revenue hfld issued the NONC and NAA beynnd the time stipulated under the ITA. Section 9I(1)t11 the WA 1957 provides that the DGIR may only make an auaitionai assessment within rive years. untuitunatety, it took the Revenue nine years to carittuet the audit exewlse aitne appettant company [13] Eu! lhe iaw is (hit when the Revenue can establish ihai there has been anytorrii of iratiu, wiiiut aeiauit or negligence on the pannfllte taxpayer, the iiniitattun period in suh-aecltun (1 i win not apply. The DiVec1Dr—Genen3| 01 the Inland Revenue (“DG|R'j may make an assessment 'at any nine" pursuant (0 subseclmn 91(3), which reads IN -qo/SIyunyNnGipU‘zvrg “Nair s.ii.i nuvthnrwm be u... m mm i... nflmhniily MIMI m.i.i. VII aFiuNG Wm! mo Director serrerot Mum tl annaars to mm um . 12) any tnrrrr M ltaud or wrttut delzull has been oammmo may at or. menu?! M any person: or to) my person Ins been rrootroem. rrr oonnomrorr wtln or In retzflun |o lax. my al my nrrr. maka an asussmenl In naspem ot mat person or any year at Iuanrlunl lnr Ina wmma ul rmzrrg good any loss or Llx allnbutable lo we tram, wrttur daiiull or neghqence In quntrorr [141 The son |ock cogntsance |ha| actor me Iudu exsrcxsa by me Revenue. me appellanl ma filed rts lax return renew"), ma pamculats 01 wtrrcrr were rrroorrect Aooororrrg to the sow, tenure to rooort an acme! mooma rrr aoooroarroe wtlh me proursrorr ot the ITA arrrourrteo to neghgence. The son died the judgment M the Hugh court rrr Opus Irttemalianal M Bhd v Ketrra Pongalah Hull Dalam mg-rt (20:91 1 ms 563 as an aumorrry tor me atoresaro pmpcsmnn The learned Judge. aflev havmg reterroo to wnrterrrsrr on /rrcorrrs Tax, 3'“ Edmon, retletatsd ma! ltshould be nmad thal mrr muuw an nmweu return vats not rrrooe Vtaudmeufly at neghglnfly orrqrrrauy. a smseauorrr nrturs In rumsdy rt wnhaut unreiwnable astoy my resurr In rrrs mum room {until u hlvlng hem moo neguqentry [15] Far XIV! aforesaid reasons. We SCIT held lhal the Revenue had suooessitmy discharged the burden o1 orout mat the appeuarrt was negltganl under s 91(3) or me ma. On Issues 2 and 3 [15] me scn dealt wrth Issues 2 and 3 togemer. [17] Acoordrng to the SCIT para 3 at Schedule 5 ol the VTA provides that me onus oi pmvtng that an assessment agatnst wmch an appea\ rs made rs excesstve or erroneous shall be on me oopollant. A ru -on/slyonynnmpurzvrg “None smut mmhnrwm .. u... m my r... oflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII muus v-mat [la] The SClT, In arriving al rrs finding, was or me vlew lnal lo olairn RA under sonadule 7A al the in, me appellanl oonrpany rnusl eslahllsh that me New Factory lll Taman Teknologl cnang and me spuled menus are wilhin me meaning oi para 3(3) Whldl provides ma: a propel lmaenakarl by a oornpany. rn expanding, rmdemlzmg or almnlmlng lls axlallflq buslnass ln rasml cl rrrnnulaslunng or a pmducl oranyralalao omom wllhln lhe um: lnduslry or W dlvnnllylllg ll: exlslmg ausinoa. lino any velmad product wllnrn ma sanie inouury Releranoe was then rnaoa lo a working paper praparao by me appellanl claim 2 12.2005. II was slalao ln Ine working papar mar ralamtiorl lo the Nsw Facmry was ‘lor expansion |a largal new ouslcmers, addlhnnal pmducllon lloor spaoa up to more man 3,000 so menu as compared In lolal currenl laur ulms snonlol oi approximately 1.500 Sq meter‘. [19] The SCIT also look nale lhal the appellant had stopped using the Prewous Factory In Domlng lo the said finding‘ the SCIT lalerred lo A15 cflhe avbellarllfs wllrless sialemarll, wnrcn inlaralia scales llial the pievlnus lac|ory -ooulo no longer aoeomrrrooale ano in me new machlneries Ihal the appellant purchased". [20] SINCE the Previous Faclcry was no longer in uperallcn, the SCIT held trial the appellant was nol enlllled I0 dalm W on the Naw Faclory. The reason. acwrdlng to the son, is simple. The appellanl had Vlltherlu enloyed RA on lhedevelopmerll ellhe Previous Factory where lire machlrleries were previously loealao lrnrn us was until 2005, [211 In anon, lna SCH’ was ollha ODIVIVDVI lnal only Ihe addrlronal floor area cnuld be dalmed (M RA In VA 2006 In me amumslannesr “qualllying pmled“ pursuanl in para 8(a) o1 Schedule ‘(A of ma ITA is only appllcabla lo lne oomon or lhe laclory lo gsnarala income The sow made a lurlner finding that me New Fac1ory was ml entirely used lor lha purposes cl me appellanrs pmouolion. IN -on/slylanyunmpulzvrg “Nana Smnl mmhnrwlll a. u... a may i... nflnlnnllly mini: dnuuvlnnl vu muue vtmxl [22] Havlng round tnat Ina apuellant was no lonqenn use with: Plevinus Facmry, tne SCIT Iunner held that the tacls should be dlsllngulshed tram Koml P-nganrrr menu In Mogul v Succosa Elocnonles 5 Transramrer Mlnuhclun Sdn Bhd [2m2] MSTC 304739 Ia dectslun wnrctl was affirnled by me court at Appeal) In that case, the taxpayer was alill ultll ng Ine prevlou: Iactary as storage. unllxe the instanl case [23] A: In the DI5pu|ed Items) the SCIT was at the view that the items were not cortneclad ID the manlflacluring 01 a product within the meanlng at pars ate) An example ls tnat me usage altne computers in me Quallly Asauranee Department ls unrelated to me machlnes used In the Pmducliorl Department [24] In snort, tna SCIT agreed wllh Ihe Ravanues wnlerllmrl Ittal me Dlsputed Items were located aulstde the appellants Dmductlurl area and were nutdlrectly Involved in Ihe appellants prcduclmn pmuess On lssue 4 [25] Aaouralng ta the scll, a defense at good lallh ls pmvlded under s 113(1) at tne ITA s 113(2) would operate rt no pmsecmiun were made unaers11a(1) The sell, relylng an SyxrikatPltllIrl Ladang Kelapa Sawlt Sdn and v Kama Pangaran Hasfl nalam Nsvcrl [2012] 6 MLJ 411, was at me vrew mat tor ma same wrung, tnat rs, maklng mconecl returns or wrengvul rnmrmalion, a person who 15 not cnargea under s 113(1) can be lmposed with Denally under s 113(2). [25] The SCIT then made flmllerfindlrlgs as tallawsz (B) Awordtng In the Revenue‘; wllness, 17716 of H16 (actors lhal led to the Revenue imposlng a 45% penalty was Ihat the appellant had wraltglully clalmed |he RA when there was evidence at under-vepnrllng, wmcn was only arseoversd auar me audn etcerclse (b) Thu lnrvo Iaxuayers. n of a penalty 15 ta serve as a aalenent to other n u/slywwnshulzva “Nut: an.) nnvlhnrwm .. u... m mm .. mrmuv mm: dun-mm y.. arlum v-ma) Tm Fmdinns of sell [271 The son um maaemevouowmg Dec‘ ' g Order: ou=u1us«m am . mmmn fisngan Iahun lakslran 7006‘ 2001‘ 2005‘ zoos dzn mo Runendsu man berlaya msmmmzkan benlnsalkan Imbannan hrebarangullan bahawa Perzyu cuai menunn subseksyen 9113) Am Cukm Pemlplhn we1 Wu salmcry. um vmpoman mempnmyli nil unluk mangaluarkan NahsT.Iksuin fidak Kena cum bag! umm (nkwan zoos. zwv, znoa Gan zoos um um. Takihan Tlmbnhin bag: vzhun uks4ran2I)1fl: mw nuvuruanm BAHAWA Perayu udnk hamnk unluk menumul Elam Pulaburln Semula rzvsy nag pemelanjznn mm baa: bcngunan Wang bug! (shun Iaksmn ma .1... pamsuruaan mu-1.: bag: nu! ylng dupemkavkan nag: Iahun mksvan 2006, 2am dnn ma -mum mun u ACF yang ber umlah RM‘m1,517 sepem yang flxpenlnlkan .1. mmuauy-ng mum x u Cahgofles Duclivllm Amman! mm mm Cumpmu sues Hams: we ’ mos Cumpmar up Deslgnpfl mug. 13,000 mm Iron Frame Camnels 1 ura-mm my 5.045 zoof Trmuxng equma j rage my ;...m..mu ‘%an ‘ 2007 V Compulrevr ‘ 2 um MMC Dskmp 4.310 77 10A 4. mm-a) 2007 ’ Cumpula 1 unfl >4» Deshtnp 2,550 : sm -an/slymrmyusfipu. mg «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! um hahawn Raipanden mmlwrwm Inndarxgurudang am «ma umuk mengerukarl punam mmuml xubuklyan Mam mp bag: Iahun Iaksdan 2o1n.2on dan am. mm Pan‘/u man gagav umuk mantuknkan rayuan Ferayu am gagul msnunjukkan mm; N011: Tnksvran max Karma Culm an mm Takswzn Tambahan yang dwkanakzn meh Ruspundun n-nemmeman um: um ulnru dengan kahandak pemnagan 13 Jadual 5 mm ACP: dnn DAN news»: nu rayuan Puraw dvtmak flan Mom Pimbemahuin mu Kenn nun. mun 7 Mac zma hagi Tatum Taksra zoos mm. zooe din zoos sen: Mann-km-n Tzmbahan henankh 7 Mac zma bagx lzhun uuum mm, mm, 2012 yam: bevkmlan German myuan ml aan raenam yang dixsnikin dukakan. [23] l| ws Igamsl nus Decrdmg omermat the appellant ws appeahng sm (:15! mm mpmzwa mi“ Snr1Iy\nmhy:rwH\I>e H... w my .. nnmnuu-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum W mm Oomnuler « unnMMC new.» 1,109 i Freud suvsrvnsor zoos Compmor 1 mm campus: was ‘ Nmebmk-Pmductmn D\m:Inr znua cnmpm-r ‘ me. Anmb-| sum-m 1 as: — cm naoanmem mos comp-Mr’ 1 3':-m Imnmn an sum same" mam Soltwam zone ’ ComDItI2F " Zumllmnckfl an Sold 2.-smo ’ ' wanna: Snllwnm zuna Cumume< ’ mu so Ram- can I 723 new 1u1,5I1 Al lira Higrr Conn [291 Belore rrie, learned counsel for lrie appellanl subrriined lnal lne scli riad corrinrrlled ine lellawing errors. They will be deall with in turn. RA on me Iscllzry new area and disputed ilerns [an] Learned caunsel «er the appellanl eonienaed lnal uie SCIT nad erred in concluding lriar lne previous laclary was no longer in operalieri [31] Acmldlng to learned counsel. during |hE Irlal, the appellant had led evidence on llie increase of Ihe appellant’: annual turnover, pmducllon and sales before and aflzr the capllal expendllure incurred in me New Faclnry and me Disoured iierne For example, me revenue el rne appellarrl company had inereased «min RMa,529,e4o in VA 2004 to RMI&,354,953 in VA zoos. [32] The appellanrs oon|en|ion is lrrar me scrr had lalleri min error in arriving at lie decision since were is naming in ellnerlrie |TAorpara 6(a) of schedule 7A, wriicn snares lrial llie factory snail be reslrieled based on area dillerenee belween the old and me new laaory. [33] ciling Success Eleclmwcs as an aulhorlly. learned munsel lor |h9 appellam sunniirred lrial lhe High Court had reieered llie Revenue‘: epproecn in reslncling RA based on lne dillerenoe in me llocr area belweeri lne old and new laclory [:41 In any event, on me resrnelren cl RA on ~produclion area" only, [he Hign courl irr Success Elecrraiirce lurlher held lrial lrie Revenue was rial enlrlled lo do so since lrie eandilrorr lorllie pruduclion area was riol ccnlained in scnedule VA. in snon, learned murisel lor the appellanl submlfled lnal lrie Revenue‘: aIIemp| oensliluled e rewriling ollrie Iegislalrori; Kelua Pengaran Hasil Dlllnl Negeriv OKA concrele lnduemes Sdn and [2015] MSTC was According to me learned Judge. lne Revenue was nol enlilied re reduee nr disallow lire RA claimed under scriedule 7A based on its own internal ruling or guidelines IN -qu/SIypn1NnGDpUlzvrg “Nair s.i.i nuvlhnrwlll re ii... m may i... nflfllnnllly MIMI dnulvllnl VII nFluNG Wm! [35] As to the Dlsputed lterns, learned edunsel tnen reterred rne to the iudgnient of tne Hign court In Ketu. Penqarlh nasil oalarn Megan‘ II Fltyas (M) Sdll and [2014] 1 MLJ ml the case carries the pmposiliort that it Pirllamevfl intended RA to be restricted only to ‘prvducnon area‘, then Parliainent would have surely specified this clearly in scnedule 7A in short. echolrlg the ratio in success E/scborllcs, tne appellants contention is that the Revenue is not entitled in impose tne condition pl “pmdudmn area“ purportedly based on internal rulings er guldellnes that have no loroe or law [36] In any event‘ the appellant contended that the dlspuled items were signmcanl lo the appellants production process. According to the appellant, the corn te and sothyare dearly fall within the definition ol“mudern rig and “aumma(lng" within me anrbitol para rate) or scnedule 7A In short. every such item, as in OKA Concrete lrlduslfiesi pertormed an integral tunr:lion in the context at the appellant's bustness oi manufacturing the Engineering Parts. [37] In the circumstances, learned counsel tor the appellant sutarnitled that lhe Revenues view that the Disputed Items are not located in the production area and, lherelore. not eligible tor RA t: m is mlsplaesd The fact that the disputed items are not physically located in the production area does not necessarily iriean that they tall numlde the erntril pt para 5 ol schedule 7A. Time Bar [as] it is not in dispute that the assessments lpr ‘M5 2006 to 2010 watt: issued atter the expiry oi tne 5»yeer psnod stipulated in s eltll oi the WA [39] As to whether the t~loNcs raised by the Revenue are tiineparied or otherwise. learned counsel tor tne appellant suprnitted that the SCIT nad erroneously lound that the Revenue had successtully proved that me appellant was negligent. [40] The tnding plnegligenoe was based on melactlrlal during the audit exercise, the Revenue discovered that there were other Hams leund to be lnouvrecl in the Taxpayers lax return. According to SC|Tl lne incorreclness was not disputed by the appellant it is tor this reason ID IN -qo/SIyuflyNnGDpUlzwg «nu. Smnl nurlhnrwlll be u... M mm i... nflnlnnllly sun. dnuuvlnrtl n. nFluNG mi

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-16A-5-02/2023

PERAYU CHONG POH LUM RESPONDEN IDEAL QUALITY SDN. BHD.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Industrial Court – Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 – Section 35(1) Savings and Transitional provision – Meaning – Whether to proceed by way of judicial review or appeal ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Industrial Court – Termination – Whether termination with just cause and excuse – Burden of proof – Termination on poor performance – Evidence – Finding of facts

10/01/2024

YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=816ddcde-0937-4f41-8b96-a2f5b10edc61&Inline=true

10/01/2024 12:07:01 WA-16A-5-02/2023 Kand. 28 S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3txtgTcJQULlqL1sQ7cYQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—1SA—5—02/2023 Kand. 28 12/m;2n2L 12:07-n1 DALAM MAHKAMAH T1NGG>MALAVA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA [BAH/\G\AN KuAsA—KuAsA KHASD RAYUAN GML N0. wA—1oAs—u7J2u23 Amara Chang Pch Lum Perayu Dan mean ouamy sun Bhd Respenden JUDGMENT IN'rRoDuc11oN [11 On 15“ December 2022, the Inausm Conn msnusseu the appeuanrs, Chang Fun Lum. clawm lur unvamisnmev (‘me xmpugned award') by ms emmoyer, Ideal Qualily Sdn Bhd (‘Ihe respondent‘) The apueuann appeexed Ia we com me Nance M Appeal aaxea 204" February zoza. on W August 202:, I 1 sm :bauTuauuqL1s/qvcvu nine smm ...m.mm .. .4... m my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! msnnssea the anpea\ on the grvund that «here was no sppeaxame error warranlmg appenaxe Inlerlerenoe agaIns| me impugned award on eslabhshed unnumes. [1] The reasons my my decwsran are as iulluws PRELIMINARY OSJECYION [3] serene Drooeedmg, u \s necessary to den! wnn me prehmm3f‘/ obnecnan rawscd by me respcnaenx. as was subrmlled that me name of appeal was |ncnmpe|en| ano deprived |Ms courl at yunsauman. The argumenl was that any cnauenge against me impugned award wfuch proceeded an repressnxauons under Seclion 20 at me IRA pnm o4 me oomung Inla lame onne lndusmal Relations (Amendment) An 2020 [Act A1515] (‘the Amundmenl Act") on 1" January 2021 can an\Y be bruughl by way 0! yams: rawsw under 0 53 Rmes of Court 2012 and Hal by way or a nonce nl appeal under me new Search sac by mus oi subsenmn 3511) al me Amsndmenl Au. 2 ‘ sm awamauuqmmcvu «wn. s.nn mmhnrwm .. U... a may he nrW\ruH|y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl muNa ma used lot the treatment ol scrubber water to be rrrarntatrtad at a oenarn level at all ltmes to ensure the proper treatment 0! scrubber water. The malnlertanoe department headed by the appellant was |asked to ensure the chemical level was maintained accomrngly wrthrrt the water tank. [13] on 5“ June 2020‘ me appellant was terminated due to poor perlormanoe The |em'llnal>on letter dated 2"“ June 2020 (relevant pant states as lollows TERMINAHON or EMPLOYMENT DUE TO UNSATISFACTORV JOE PERFORMANCE The above matter ralers the Management has conducted a thorough assessment on your lab pertetmance level tor the past lew months. nesorte constant gulaanea lnant your lmmedtale srrperlor arm adequale llme lrarne glven tor rmprouentent, we team: that you have been unable ID acmeve expected perlotmance startuan-ls set by the company lncludlng your lrlabllfly to ptovrae tlmely upaate at wofk progress to your lmrnearate superlor ll ‘ srn :bdaTut:luuqL1sa7cVu “Nair s.n.t narlhnrwm be tr... a may t... nflmnnllly mt. dnuavlml VI arlutta vtmxl vou have ates eeitea |o ensure the emctency eha proauctnnty etyeur depanmem oueren you have lafled |o demonslvain satisfactory inh perterrnenoe tor an empteyee at ycuriob Ievet wnh lhls VI mmfl, we regret to tntenu you that the Management has decided In serve you the rrotree at ternunuuon otemwyment wtth ef1ec| lrern 5'" June 2020 THE AWARD or THE INDUSYRIAL COURT [121 The appellant made a represenlalton to the new agamst the lamination unuer secuen 20 oi the RA The mspute was euentuetty relened by the mInts|erIc the tnaueutet cauruoredtudicetton There was no tssue before the tnuustnel court on the terrntnehon Thus, the only tunctton left «or the mduslnal ceun m e sttuetten we thus ts ta aeterrmhe whether Lhe |ermInaItcn was with just cause and excuse ( see weng ctm Noni v ceth-y omntutton (M) sun Brad [1 935] 1 cu Rep 295;. [201 The matter 0! lermmllmn was haard anesh by the tndustnel court and at the concluston oi the (Hal made me Impugned ewem The Indusmev Caurl touna that the n ‘ sru :vaaTuauuqL1s/mcvu «we. s.n.t nuvthnrwm .. med m vufli t... ntwtruflly em. dnuuvtml Vfl mum Wm! respondent rraa gwen sumciem wammg about me appeuarrrs performance The (ouowrng paragraph m the rrrrpugrrea award sets out me uecrsron man was made (me ‘clarrnanr reierred «o in the paragraph Is Ihe appeuanu. In mrs case, me Clavnanl had been gwen sumcrem name or wamrng about his poor perlarmanne as a Manager at me Maumenanoe Deparlmenl On 04.02.2020 Inmdenl. the clarmam failed to ensure that me levei 09 pnerrripar compound requrraa for me scrubber water does nod leh bebw me reqmred Vevel. The Clalmanl fawled Io cons\s(enI4y lake and renord ma chemical Vavels. On 03.04 2020 rrrmaerrr, than was a drop m the cmonne supply The Cla|man|admx|Iet1 that ms neg\ecI of duty was the cause or me mcldenl On 30 n4.2c2o mcidenl, the C\aIman( admitted to raising ms value In me HR a Salely Ofice and aarrrmea that ms acuarr and behavlaur was cumrary \o me camparrya procedure Thu clarmann was given reasonable uppcnumw w rmprove his work periurmance. Despne mat. me oaimam lailed to rmprpre work parvprrrrarrca 1; ‘ am :baaTnmuuqL1s/mcvu “Nana saw nmhnrwm a. med a may r... nflmruflly mm: dnuamnl VI mum war THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL [21] The appellam raised Ihe vuuuwrrrg gmunds olappeal (a) mere is no ewdenca to suppon me appellanfs rerrrrrrracrorr on the grounds ulpoor periorrrrance: (by mere rs no evidence of a peflarmance rmprovemzm plan wmmemenled against me appellant; (cl (here was no wamvng to me appaHan| m regard |n ms poor pertormancer 1d) the respondent‘; wntnzss (sown asked as invaugalor. prosecutor and arxjuarcawr in respect 0! ma appenarrrs termination‘ (e) the rrrcraerrz ma: occurred on 4'" February 2020 consraered by me Inausxrran Court was not In our Iermmalnon wearer: (I) ma Irruusrrial ccun mxsirderpreled me oonienls ol the wamrng Ieller «am: 15!" May 2020 as ounslnulmg pom performance n ‘ sm :wuTnmuuqL1s/mcvu “Nana Snr1|\nauhnrw\HI>e U... m may r... mruurr mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max (g; the |m1usIria|Ccurt med to oonsmer (hail (here were no repealed mcwdanis 0! poor pervamuanoe (mm 15'" Apru 2u2u unul Ihelerminalmn nn 5“ June 2020, and (nu ma mspandem did not bnng me appellanrs anarman in ms poor performance and advised Mm |n Improve ANALYSIS AND DECISION [221 I laund that me decwswon 0! me lndusmar own that me termination was with ‘us! cause and excuse was supporled by ample evudence. The gmunas of apnea! can be summarised undev the lollowlng broad headings Pmomunu unpmmmm mu [21] Fuss‘ msxenees 0! me appellant‘: pour pervormance were summarised In the Pervmmance lmpmvemenl Plan Recoms 1“PlPR”) veoewed by me appellant. Vn crass examinanon ma apneusm oonmmea that he am not disagme with me PIPR 15 ‘ sm :wuTemuuqL1s/mcvu «mm. Snr1|\nuuhnrwH\I>e U... m may s. mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 124) Further, the slluflllon pl the appellant ta compounded by poor perlarrnance ln relallon to the two serlous lnclaehls wrucn arose as a result ol the neglec1 and one mCIdSn| whlcrl oeneernea ha behaviour agams1 the respohpenrs policy The larrhlrlatlarl, on |he evldence‘ was made alter ample opponunlty was glven tonne appellant Io lmprove Evldlnm wf pun! pcrfomlanel aha wnvnhlgl ln 2020 (:5) Second. the svldenoa t11 pom parlarrnanoe and warmngs pelole lne lnaustrlal Calm were Lmcomradicled and tn fact aornltlad The elndence was as lollows. (l) The lrleluent on 4"‘ February 2020 where lhe level ol ohernlcal compound requlred lor treatment of sorubtaer water In arts or the tanks fell beluw the raqulred level The aetennlnatlon at the appropnale level pl ohermaal compound tn the water tank was the rssponslhlhly al the appellant aa neao ol the rnalnlenanoe oepannnenl. The evmenoe snows that the appellant had admllled that the modem was hls vault. He had alw proflerao some lé ‘ srn :wuTamuuqLls/mcvu “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm a. p... a may r... nflmnnllly unn. dnuuvlml Vfl arlurm Wm! exnlarlatlon lur lne inciaenl — wnlcn explanallan an lnquuy by me respondenl was lound urwsllfied. (li) Tne appellanl was warned ln a Ienerdaled 24* February 2020 anoul ms work perlennanoe regardlng lnls lncluenl and lo llnprove mmsen. (lll) The lnclaem on cw Apnl 2020 was where there was a dlsmpllan to me cnlonne gas supply resulhrlg In a drop 0! enlonne new ms luncllon was also me raaaanalblllly of me head al lne rnalnlennnee deparlmenl. As a consequence cHhelnl:ldsnl,t|1are was a dawrllum m Ihe pmdudlon llne anne respondent slnce me same had lo be snul own [or 53 mlnules As a resullol ms lncldenl, me respondent suffered losses much was H1 lne reglon al 35,000 places or gloves Agaln. lna appellanl had admmed lnal ll was ms nagleel. The appellanl had lunner sent an e~mal\ lo lne General Manager cl Operallons Eldmlflmg lnal me lnclaenl was due lo hum wnereln ne asked in be glven anolher cnanee ln me lollnwlng wams l nope I can be gwan a chance to comm mysell [mm (he above nagllganee nrld wrung n ‘ am :waTeu:luuqL1s/mcvu “Nana a.n.l luvlhnrwm a. UIQG a may l... nflnlnnflly ml. dnunvlml VI nFluNfl Wm! aging Ican assure you in the moriins rv come, you win be able (0 see me Improvement required. (W) The appeiiarii was again warned in the Ienei daied 16"‘ April zuzn aboui riis work peiimiieiice regarding nriis incident and io iriinreve riiriiseii or more severe eiiieipiinaiy eeiiori ceuia be taken agairisi him (vi The incident ori 30“ April 2020 ms wriere the eppeiiarii iiae bahlved in a manner unbecoming of e iieae oi uenanriierii at me ieeporiuerii ieweres MAW of me Human Resource & saieiy omee Again, [he apgeiiani admmed tn iiis unbeoummg behaviour agreeing ai |he same iiirie lhal such behaviour was agairisi me iesperiuerirs poiivv (VI) Again, as me eaniei incieenia me resporieerii had issued a warning letter and reminded the appeuerii against sucri raeurienee and ie improve upon his ieerii riiariegeriierii sxiiis aria seiiooiiiioi asgecis ll ‘ sm JMUTMDUUQLVX/.}7cYD “Nair s.i.i luvihnrwm be UIQG a may i... aiiiii.ii-i mi. dnuaviml VI nF\uNfl Wm! [26] Tnus, there was ample evidence oi pour perionnance and warnings given In the appellant Th! industrial ceurt was tutaiiy iustified lo aims at tlie findings it did on the evldmos. Evldoiino ed poor ponoi-nuiice In 2019 [271 in respect oi tne ineiiecine Vfismlrce management issue, the appeilanl did no| etialtenge ttie iespundenrs witness testimony. The evidence can be iniind in the appeiliinrs performance appraisal for the year 2019 whereby the appellant was rated belmv the expecled rating for all the core ennipetencies the counter of liitu-at [23] Tlie ground oi eoniiict ai interest is a non»si.aitei Tiieie is no issue oi conilict oi interest as the terinlnailon at me appellant was lieaid airesii by tlie industrial court. The lndustnal coun lieaid independently tna testimony at witnesees and ducuinenlary evidence produced tzeiare ritm in determining wtiether the tenninalion was at was not witn lus1 cause or excuse niii. aiiiii all is me Iunctidn oi ttie Industnai court in )9 ‘ SIN 3bduTuDUlJqL1x/.}7cVD «wit. s.i.i nuvihnrwlll be UIQG In may i... nflfllrinllly MVMI dnulvilnl Vfl .nuiia Wm! the crrcurnstanoes. me qmund oi ounfhcl nf inleresl or rn other words has 45 aevora oi mm. coNcLusIoN [29] Havmg considered Ihe record of appear and sunrnrssrens cl pames, I am sausfled me: me appeHanL who bears me burden of pmvmg any such Infirmilies and defects In one aecrsron 07 me Indusmal com lo jusllfy appeHa|e mlervsnhon has plainly nu| succeeded In awornpnsrung Ihe same [30] The findmgs 0! (act Me lndusmal Conn were based on the lo|aIvly of the ewdenoe adduoad bslore M The appeuant has men In pmve 1ha\ lhe lndustnal Conn was ‘pVa\n\y wrong" or mat mere was msulficlent iud\c\a\ appreclahon 0! the evidence (Mg Moo Kul 3. Ann: v Wendy Tan Lee Feng (adm strlx for me mm of nn Ewe Kwlna. d--mud) L on 120201 12 MLJ s7 and Lu lng Chln @ Lu Yuck sang a. on v Gun Vaok chxn s. Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97) m ‘ sm :taauTuauuqL1x/mcvu «mm. serm mmhnrwm .. U... w my r... mrnu-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa WM [4] l was unable Io agree wrlh the argurnenl prellerad by me respondent My reasuns are as lellews. [5] The appeal provision‘ Se n 330 is a new Imwlsium lnssrled m the IRA by the Amenumenl Au and read as (allows: (1) ll any pevsnrl VS dissallsfied wnn an award at the com made under Sedlnn so such person may appeal to me Hlgh Court wllmn lmmeen days lmrn me dale or reeelpl onna award. (2) The procedure In an appeal |o the Hlgh Cam well be me pmeedure In ma Rules cl ceun 20:2 [P u (N205/2D12]1or an appeal lvom a sessmns Ccuurl Wllh sum rnodllleallons as «he clrcumslanees may mqulra. (3) In deallng wlln such appeals. me Hlgh Cnun shall nave hke powers as if lne appeal ls lrprn me Sasslons Ceun x ‘ sm :wuTemul.lqLls/mcvu “Nana Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. U... a may r... nflnlnnllly mm: dnuavlml VI nFluNa Wm! [31] For the above reasons we appeal Is duslmssed mm wsts. Amansel Smgh Ser1\1Singh Judge Hugh Courl Kuala Lumpm Daled' 7'” December 2023 5;q_un I own Agflnnm Dommc Sewam all Gnanapragasam Messrs Dommc Pvagasan Tan 5 Cu R Ravmdra Kumar, Tech Kan Xxcng and Roseveen Kaur Tynaau Messrs Rafi Damy 5 Lou 2. ‘ sm awamauuqmmcvu «mm. smm nmhnrwm s. U... w my s. mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Casts nhrnd to: 1 ) Suparinhndenl 01 Land 5 Surveys Samarallan Division v surianxu bin Abdul Mumld A Anor[2U1E]E am am 2; Wang cm. Hang it Cnthay Organisation (M) Sdn arm [was] 1 cu Rep 293) 3; Ng Han Kui 5 Mar v wmay Tan L Pong (ldmlnlllnx (or «m main 0! Tun Em Kwlnq, duceasad) 5. Or: [2025] 12 MLJ 67 4; Lu my chin @ L-a Tuck sang a. On V cm Vnok chin a. Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97; 11 ‘ sm J4-<AyTuuuuqL1su7cvu mm. s.n.i n-vihnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mi. dun-mm VII .mm mm [51 This new aaminn gave the parry aggneved wnn an award onhe lnduslna\ Ccun a ngh| cl apnea‘ dnecfly m the mgr. Conn. Prior lo the amendment sums to say, \he award 01 the Induslnil Court was firm! and ma anly way «.2 cnauanga ma award was by way or ;m1icia\ rayraw under Subsecuon 2s(2; read with «em 1 oi the Schedule to the Courts oi Judrcature Act 1964. Tna seclinn came into upevatinn on 1-‘ January 2021 and us pmspeclwe m uls euaa ms means that any cnauanga man award rendered by \he Industrial Courl mustprooeed by way 0! n wives or anneal ham 1* January 2021 rn The respondent arguaa max by wnua of Subseclmn 35(1) 07 lhe Amendment Am ma rarnady at man al raviaw and ncn an appeal Is open |a the appellant ma Is gwen that me reprasancauon for vemstalemenl under Subsection 20(3) of me IRA was made and: to 1-‘ January 2021. In my vnaw mere Is auaomely no cannecuan bslween ma remedy to cnauange an award oflhe Vnduslrial Caurl. be it Audvz:Ia\ review or an appeal. wnr. Subsedaon 35(1) cf me Amendmanl Acl. Thu send remedies do not tau mum ma scope 0! me said sechcn A ‘ srn :baaTuauuqL1xa7cvu “Nana s.nn nmhnrwm a. U... a may r... nrW\ruU|Y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum war [8] Suhseclxun 35(1) 07 \he Amendmenl A61 is 3 savmgs and llarlsllinnm provusion II has a specmc purpose and due (0 its mlpcurlanue m re\a\von to me argument rawsed m Is reproduced lor ms Ml eflacl (1 ) Complaints made under saclian a‘ disputes referred under suhseclinn am), daims for recogmnon made under seenun 9, representations for reinstatement made under semen 20 0/ me pnncrpal Act, and an pmcsedmgs commenced a, awards made belore me Induslnal Court In re/arron to a mlerencs under suhsemmn s(2A), subaettvon 20(3) and section 25 balms the commg mo operabon n/ me Act shall proceed and news etrecr as If the princrpal Am had not been amended by rm: Act. (2; AH rules and regulauons. forms‘ dwreclrons and Ieuer o1 amnanzauene made‘ msued or granted under me pnnc|pa|Ac1 shall, in me exlenl mat me Mes am regulations, forms, dwecmons and water :11 amnonzanans are oens\s(en| wwn ma pnnc\pa\ 5 ‘ sm :wuTuauuqL1s/mcvu «mm. sew nmhnrwm .. U... n may n. nnmnmy -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! AC1 as amended by «ms Act, ooruinue to be m lame unm such rules and regulauans‘ lovms, mvecuor-s and Ienerur aumarizauorus are revoked or amended. (3) Any rnvesugation, man or proceedmgs dune. taken or commenced under me yrmmpal Act Immediately belme the oommg mm apevalmn or "us An, snau be dean mm as N me prinapal Acl had nol been amended ny we Ac! [9] It Is Immediately apparent that seamen 35 0! me Amenamem Act has |hree subssclmns and ash den! wnr. separa|e mailers. Aa srmwn bsiew nolhung m me suhsschan nears mm the remedy 0| jud al review or appeal The mutant of subsecnon 3511! Weans wllh what hawans |o ma «oumrug mauers on lhe cermng Into opereupn oi the prowsrons m we Amenamemm (r) the wmpxarrms man had been mlde under sepx-on 3 00 me IRA‘ (u) me mspuxes relerred Io under Subsection 9(1A] of me VRA. 5 ‘ am :wuTuauuqLw.:7cvu “Nana san-w nmhnrwm .. U... a may r... mruuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max (Hr) lhe claims for recogrumn under secmr. 9 er ma RA‘ (Av) me represerneuons (er remslaumenl under secuan 20 or Ihe\RA,snd av) pmceedmgs (hal have commenced by me mauenrral com or awards made belors me Inausmal Com m relauan lo a reference made under Subsection 812A). Subsection 20(3) and Sechon 26 of me VRA subsecnon 35(1) expressxy slates that |hese rnaners shah prnoaed and have even as n ma IRA had not been amended by me Amendment Act. The pmvlsiun rs m subslanoe a savings provrsron no; Vn we regard. n is Ins|ruc1Ave Io telev |n Legrs/azrve Dvafling 4'" Edn 2007 ac page aaa by cc Thornton on me Iurrcuan of e eevmgs and lransmonal pruvisror. In an arnenamg slams where it rs earn as loHuws: The luncuon at a savings pmmsrun m Vegislalmn -s to preserve or 'save‘ a ‘awy a ngm, a pnvllege or an obngauoru which would elhsrwuse be repealed or cease In have effect The function of a lransmunzl prwsran r ‘ em :wuTuauuqL1s/mcvu «we. Snr1|\nanhnrwH\I>e H... e may r... nrwhuflly -mm: dnuamnl vn mum WM rs to make specral nnavisron for the applreeaan av Vegwsmwon la the euuumsxanoes wmoh e at the lime wnen thal Vegxslanon comes mlo brce [111 on savmgs pmvlsmn, me Veamad aulhar al pages 357 and ass sera that a savmgs pruvrsron is used to preserve whal already exrsrs u cannal create new ngms ur omrgeuons. Such a savings provrsron may be cpncameu m mcerprexenen Vagxslanon or may be speemceuy mduded [:2] The correct approach |o take when dealing mm me rssue at hand rs 10 \wk at the substance and genem purpose M the lemslauan m order In msecver us obpechver arm or Purpose, the rmschlel r: us mended to be auaressed, us have regard to we oensequenees that wcmd ensue from holdmg a statute la be relrospacflve or prospecllve and to avoid any onnslmclmn mat would produce unvarr, absurd or norrenduus eensequenpes (ceun 01 Appeai m Suparinhmienl of Land & Survlyl Sum um» Dlvlllon v Suvllnlo mu Abdul H-mm 5 Anal [2015] 9 ELR am x ‘ srn :wuTuauuqL1s/mcvu «mu. s.n.r nmhnrwm .. med u may r... nflmruflly -mm: dnuamnl vn mum p-ms! [131 In mew :2! me above princrpwee, K re the lundlan 01 «ms com to examtne me amended Sectton 20. In pemeuvar Subsenxan 2043) men rs In Issue In me mstam case to asaenam what the legislature has Intended The arnenernent subsmulod me exisimg sutuseeuon 20(3) mm a totally new subsedion. The mam dwllerenoe between tne two provisions Is lhal me new rm makes the reverence |o me Induslriul Courl Vn respect av represenvauuns lor remstatemenc. so, wnat happens to the represemeuone made In the DGIR, or reverenees made by the M. sler to me lndusmal Conn, :11 prooeeemgs VI me Vnduslnal com in delermme me dtspule m the sad neterenees, or any award made before me lndusma! cmm m nalauon m such reverence made by Ike MAms|er7 [14] Section 35(1) of the Amendment Act pnwrees that these matters are to oarmnue and have and as though the amendment |D Sactmn 20 of the IRA was not made As can be seen, suhsecuen 35(1) or for man mailer subseeuons 35(2) and (3) 0! the Amendment Aci has nothing In do wrtn ramedy or challengmg an award The xnlenhon of Subsecllun 35(1) ollhe Amendment Act \s to save me reverences lo the lndusIris\ Caurl made bylha Mlrusler, preeeemngs eommeneea in the \m1us|ria\ 9 ‘ em :waTnmuuqL1s/mcvu “Nana smuw lunhnrwm .. tr... e may r... nrW\n|H|Y mm: dnuamnl VI muNa em Calm on such references and awards made beiove me lnduslnal Court In relanon In such reverence: Yhe funciron of eavmgs Is afler aH lo ’save" a raw, a rrgm. a prwrlege or obsigauen urovreea In a statute wnren weure mrrerwrse eeeee re nave efiea. [15] In me crrcumstancesr me nmrce of avnear re me proper and onry renreey open re a parry who re erssarrsnee wrrn an award or me |ndus|na\ Courl made afler 1-‘ January 2021 even rnaugn the award was made on u relerence by the Mrnrsrer pnor rnro earning mlo operafiun oi me Amendment Act For the above stated, lhe apnellanrs notrce oi aweal rs valrd and comDeIen| The prelrnrrnery aorenren tern and re eremrseee [Ia] rnow rerum to me merrrs otme appear BACKGROUND [171 The appeuanc was employee as me maimenanoe manager or me responaenr. The reepeneenr nas rn praee a preeese Im the trealmenrt at scrubber water prior to ns release to the environment. we process requires enemrear oompwunds m ‘ srn :wuTemuuqL1s/mcvu “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm re med e may r... nnmneuly mm: dnuamnl VI menu WM

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-83-02/2022

PEMOHON PETRONAS DAGANGAN BERHAD RESPONDEN 1. ) Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan 2. ) Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Leave for judicial review application – Certiorari sought to quash Case Stated by Special Commissioners of Income Tax – Whether jurisdiction of High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction – Test for leave – Whether leave ought to be granted

10/01/2024

YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a2c8e985-6470-4da3-a93e-3b3241958b82&Inline=true

10/01/2024 11:14:11 WA-25-83-02/2022 Kand. 68 S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N henIonBko02pPjsyQZWLgg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—25-e3»o2/2n22 Kand. as 11>/an/2n2L nzla-1) DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGG1 MALAVA D1 KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMFUR, MALAYSIA (BAH/\G1AN KUASA—KUASA KHAS) SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN N0. WA-2543-02/2022 Dalam perkara keoulusan Pesummaya Khas Cukal Psndapalan yang lerkanmmg di ua1am Kes D1nya|akan benznkh 65.2021 bag1 Rayuanrmyuan Cuka1 No. FKCP(R) :2/2010, 293/2014, 294/2014. 295/2014, 296/2014‘ 297/2014, 29512014. 15/2015, 15/2015. 17/2015‘ 11312015, 1912015, 119/2015, 135/2015, 1:5/2e15, 137/2015. 133/2015, 139121115. 3712016. 239/2016, 290/2016, 291/2016, 292/2016 dan 315/2917 yang dmaniar meIa1uI surat Pesumhiaya Khas Cukau Pandapslan benankh 1u11.2o21 dan ditenma oreh Famohan pada us 11 2021 Dan Damn perkara Kepulusan Posurumaya Khas Cuks1Pendapalan yanglerkandung d1 dalam Kas Dunyatakan herlankh s52n21 bug: Rlyuan cum No PKCP|R) 1029/2017 yang dlharuar mevaxuu sural Pesurumaya Khas Cukal Pendapalan berlankh 10.112021 flan dflenma oleh Pemohon uafla 16.11 2021 Dan Dalam Darker: kevutusan Pasuruhjaya Khas Cukau Pendapalan yang terkanuungch aa1am Keys Dmyaxakan henankh 552021 bag1 Rayuan Cukw No PKCP(R| 93/2019 1 m Mn1unE|aD2pF1syQlW|-Di «mm. s.n.1...m.m111... .1... m may 1... nrW\ruH|Y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl .m1a M1 yang dmanvar me1a11/1 sura1 Posuru/1/aya K/1as Cu|r.a1 Pendapacan benankh 1011,2021 da/1 d1|ar\/113 o1e/1 Femnhon had:1811 2021 Dan Dalam perkara Penman Pemulus benankh 10.12 2017 bag: Rayuarwayuan C1/1<a1 Nu F/-(CF|R) :2/2010, 293/2014, 294/2014, 295/2014, 295/2014, 297/2014, 299/2014. 15/2015, 16/2015. 17/2015. 18/2015. 19/2015, 119/2015. 135/2015. 135/2015. 137/2015. 139/2015, 139/2015. 137/2016. 259/2015. 290/2015, 291/2010, 202/2010 da/1 315/2017 yang mkeluarkan am. Pesummaya K/mas CI/ka1 Penaapamn Dan Dalam perkara Fannlah Femulus bananxn 10 7 2013 1:391 Reyna/'1 Cuka1 No. PKCP(R) 1029/2017 yang uukemarkan men Pesurumaya K/ms Cukal Pendavalan Dan na1am Darkara Pannlah Femulus benamm 30 a 2019 bag1Rayuar1 Cuka1No PKCP(R) 90/2o19yang mkeluarkan men Fesuruhjaya K/1as Cukai Pendapalan Dan IN Mn1unE|nW2pP/SYQKWI-Di «mm. s.1.1...11.m111... 0.... 11 may 1... 001.1111 -mm: dnuamnl 1. mu/1a 1-71.1 (101 VI was further argued that mere were no exeepnonet etrcumstenm such as ‘unlawful treatment“ amounung lo meganty on partmtne SCITIhaI justmes an applncatmn lcrjudtotal review {II the lace M the remedy of appeav lo the High Cuurl 2*“ PUTATIVE RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS my I omy round me IOHLW/Ing arguments at me 2"“ pulahve respenaent ment mnsl eralton «or the purposes 0! ms apphczlmn «or weave The firs! argument was that navagranh 37 ovtne VTA was aatenea by me Income Tax mmanament) Act 24119 [Act M609] wnn etreu from1“January 2020 Tnus, n waswmng var the appltcant la rety on a deleted law W ocnlendmg that the case s\a|ed fov ms lax appeat oanoemtng the Years of Assessment was delectwe since u was not stgned bylhe sctr. [121 me second was that me nolss or pmoaedmgs were avadakfle when Ihe pames submiued belore the scrr and merefore nne auegauon mat the facts were not stated in me ease stated was (nvmous and vexauous The mat evtdenoe and documents are avanable lur me apphcam tu prosecute the appeats It was turoetuny argued lha| -t was wrth-n our power of as rw hun\nnE|nW2pP|SyQlWl-Di «we. saw nmhnrwm be met! a may r... nrwhuflly -mm: dnuamnl VI menu We lne High Court erterclsrng appellate ||lfISdlC1lOn arm not me Hlgh Ccufl axerclslng rsvlaw jurlsdlcllm |a resolve ma tszrua cl lack ol facls and the lsaue ol findlngs aflac| Paragraph 39 cl Schedule 5 0! me ITA eenlers exlerlslve powers on the Hlgh opurt exerclsing appellate Jurlsdlcllml wnlcrr are not wrlnln tne powers ol the High Courl exerclslng review jurlsuinion. Paragraph 39 read as follows: The High Court shall hear and uelennlne any quesuun at law anslng an an appeal under paragraph 34 and may WI accomanca wllh Ils delermlnallon lhereu1—- (al order lhe assessment |c much the appeal relates to be confirmed. drscnargea orarnenaed. (D) remll lna appeal In the speclal ccrnrnissloners wrln ma opminn oi the court lhereont or (2) make such o|hev order as ll Ihlnks lust and appropnale IN runlnralurrzrafisyfilwbw “Nana amt navlhnrwm .. UIQG a my r... nflmnnflly MIMI dnuavlml VI mum vtmxl [131 The cases :2! E v Complmllu-5Inor.II of Inllnd RovInuo[1970}2 MLJ1I7lSlnuru Laallng sun alm v Kom: Pongarah Nasil nalam Negul [2000] 4 all 334 and Consolldalcd Gnldfields Plc v Inland Rwonuo comrnlnlorrm [1990] 2 All ER 393 were cued In suppon all me proposlllon. It was held lnal fmdlngs of Iacl are lor llre SClT lo de|ermlne and the SCIT cannol be mszruaeo lo llno lacls. was la ma mannav which may express melr finfllngs. The Chancuy DIVISVOI1 of me Hlgh Coun estahlished the pnnclple as (allows The com would nol remll a case slalaa m ma wmmlsslarwys lo lneorporale lunnar findlngs o1 lacl where me case s|aIed was lull and fair‘ L9. lls findings nroaaly covered ma lerrrlory oesrreu lo he supplemented by we proposed flrldlngs. pamcularly n It appeared mal me oammlsslnners had had \he proposed llnomgs ln mlnd when seullng he lrrral lurm ol me case scaled A case stated would be remlned to me commlssraners lo lrlwrporate mrrar findings only 1 wuld be shown mar me deslred findlngs were Ia) malenal to some tenable argument (b) al laasl reasonably open on me evlderlce that had bean u m hunlunE|nW2pPlsyQlW|-Di “Nana ml luvlhnrwm .. .r..a a may r... nflmnnllly mm: dnuavlml VI nFluNfl war adduced and lc) not inconsistent with the findings already made. Findings of fact were (or ms commissioners Io determine‘ and mey wuid not be msiructed (0 find specific facts nor wifld they be mslrumed on the manner in which men findings were to be expressed. In the cirmmsxanues‘ me criteria to remit the case sfaled had not been satisfied. I! was stressed mat the applmanl did not show whal malaria! lacls were mined by me scrr [M] Thus‘ VI was cnnianded iha| the Issue cl suificiency 0! lens and imdmg oflacls IS tor the appenaie own in resoive and not by way cum: I: a review THE 1:51 FOR GRANTING LEAVE [15] M ms outset, it IS oppcrlune Io dispose lwo connecled submissions on me issue or issue. The first made by Federa\ oounsex. was ms: in: sppncam failed to sandy the “exceptional circumstances“ (es| VI ngm at me remedy ol appeal he lemsdy here IS an appeal to the High Court, a supenormun, exercising appeHale medic:-on WW1 exlenswe puwe-s VI is not in a Irlbunal N m n-ninnannrrzvwsyfilwl-w «mm. s.n.i nmhnrwm s. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! or quasl-llmlclal body such as the SCIT to whlch a dnmesllc remedy ls provided ‘H such slluallenl the “exoepllonal l-,lmumsl.am>es“ lesl has no sppllcalmn The exceptional clrcmnslanees lesl which was expounded in GDVOIHIHOM of M yxln 5 mm v J-gdls Slngh [1957] 1 cm 451 was enlarged ln Majlis Furbarldaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bakorjaum:-um: Surbaguna Sungal Gclnuol mngan Tnrlggungan [1999] 3 CLJ E5 to lnclude a specle M 1//egamy, lnal I5 In say unlawml treatment SINCE me exoepllnnal clrcumstances has no auphcatlon {have is N: neoesslly [or me apphcam |a uemonslrale unlawml lraalmenl [16] Second. made by me applicant, was me: In succeed and be granted leave 3! Ihe leave stage Ihe appllcarll only needs In eslabllsh [Hal lt has been “adversely afleclefl‘ by the declslnn. [paragraph 14 ollhe Hujahan Eenulls Pemohon) This is not the law lav leave k: be granted. Ila person ls ‘adversely affected“ he only deals the threshold locus slanal prwvlded ln 0 53 r 214) or the Rules of Court 2012 and is enmled in make me application lo: leave nul musl omaln leave olooun lo go N the sewnu stage le me suhslanuve stage onne judlclal revlew prooaedlngs. The aulnamy on polnl us me Federal Cuurl daclsmn cl AIIII-Mill ls m hun\nnE|DW2DFlSYQZW|-Di «wn. Sum! luvlhnrwm n. UIQG e may he mln.l-y -mm: dnunvlml VI nFluNa Wm! Suruhanjaya Vang Mambonluk Suruhaniaya Siasalan Mangaml Rlk-mun Kllp vluoo vnng Mnngnndunql um] Seorang Vang Dlkxlalun Paguamhela dan Peguamcara Bcrhual Mllllui Telnfon Mangonni Uruum Pol-nmun Hakim- Hakim v Tun n-19' sue Ahmld r-Irux Duo‘ smnm Abdul Halim a. other Appmz. [2011] 5 MLJ A90. wheve wt was sad H Is deavtrom "1: above Irma person who VS adversely alfeued by Ihe demsvon of a pubhc au|han|y can make an applxcalvon for a wdlclal revwew 07 that decismn BU! Ins person must Irrsx oblam leave bslore HIS substanln/e mot/on can be heard my In reaped at aamsexy aflecled‘ lor all me rememes pm/med under 0 53 oflhe was alcourl 2012 [here ws my one singre test n ws me lhreshold locus stand: test It Is true and semea Vaw man me last .s whemer lh: apphcant has ‘a res! and genuine mteresl m me sumecl matter at review" ms was laud down bylhe Federa\ Cowl m Iflzlaysiln Yrndu Unlon congmu A 01: v Monnrl Yanaga, Alr dun Kovnunikul L Ann! [2014] 3 ML) 145 m n-nwunananzpwsyfizwl-w «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! The ml wholhur luvs uugnl In In grlrltod or not [us] It IS Irile and selued law that whemer leave to commence lualelel revlew proceedings eugnl to be gvanled under 0 53 r 3(1 j ollhe Rules alcoun 2012 me last ls tha| which IS eulmnlellvely laid down by me Federal Ccurl in WRP Asle Pic! b sun Blld v Ysnaua Nnsiolull Shd [2012] 4 ML! 295 The lesl I! la me lollbwlng WDMS Al me leave slege, on a quick perusal ol lhe malenel evellenle, ll me com thlnks me: subsequenlly all me subs|anlIve hearlng slage an arguable case may be dlsclesedl and me lellel sought may be gramedb leave snollla be grenlea. wilnaullne neea [0 gb Inlo depm cl lne abundan| aumorllles, sumee ll we slale Ihal leave may be granted ll lhe leave epplicatlon‘ nol moughl ol as lnvblbus. and ll leave is granled, an arguable case ln levour bl granllng lhe reliel saughlal me suhslznllve heanng may be me reeunanl ouloome, A ndar muel be allacnea lb lne apblleellon llmugn ie, unless lne mailer lar ludlolal revlew D5 amenable lo nmlmel levlew ebsolblely nb suweis may be erwlsaged n m MnlnnE|nW2DF|SyQlWl-Di “Nair Smnl luvlhnrwm e. UIQG e may he bflmnnllly MVMI mm. VI nFluNa Wm! us} The threshold .5 very Vow u ws cmy In suuauons where no suaaess may be envisaged that Veava mu be refiused Otherwise weave wm he gramed unless we sumecn mane! is na| amename to 1udIcIa\ renew Mailers mm are not amenable |o judvcxal ravxew are mailers (hat are nonqushcvahle such as proceedings m Pamamenn, pohcy oonsmeranons and managemem prerogative (Tengku Muhammad Fakllry Petra ihni Sultan llmail Polra v. Vzng Mahl Mulil Fomangku Ra]: K-Iullwrl & Or: [2011] 1 MLJ 123, D7 Mlchul Joylkumu Devaraj v Pogulm Negara Malaysia [mm 2 cm was; and Tln Sri Milli Hi Aman G On V. Tun Dltllk Sari Panglilni Hi Juhlr ru Mnhlmddln a. Dr: [2021] 3 cu 51) APPLICATION OF THE TEST [zn] After wnsmering lhe sutzmussmns made by aH pames, I am at ma mew that me vssues ed are smlable for mnher mveslvgahon at the substantive stage, I was concerned mm me fad me! under sub-paragmph 34(1)-11 Schedule 5015 appeal to me Hwgh coun us nmy on a pawl uf law The Issue whether the u m hun\unE|aD2pF|syQlW|-Di «we. s.nn nmhnrwm be H... w my me nrW\ruU|Y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! High Calm hearing the appeal is the prpper lprurn to decide lhe status oi are case stateu and tne appropriate ac1lorl in be taken is mr mamre argument at the substantive s1age ol the judicial review prpeeedirrgs I was also concerned wllh the last that the High Courl hearing an appeal lrcm the son has ex|erl5lve powers when determining me appeal such as remitting me appeal to tne SClT with the Dpmlon of me mun mereon and making such a|her erder as me l-lrgn court thinks ltls| and appropriate. [21] Having given anxious ourlsbderalloll to tne issues at rrana, I was at me VIEW lhal me Issues raised (1) whecner W the nrst place lrrere are detects what are tne eereets. tn). lhere are detects in me case slated‘ wnemsr me preper (mum to resolve tnase defects 15 me High court exercising appellate juvlsdlcllcni (Ill) whether tne only course open to me applicant IE to quash the case slated as per me remedies sought: (iv) and me connemed issue whelhera case stated by the SCIT an be quashed. (vi the issue whetner tne failure In sign the case slaled renders ms same lneffecllve or the amerldmerll vlde Income Tax (Amendment) Am 2019 [Act A1509 lakes ewect prospectively. were matters tor turtner lnvasagahorl at the substantive stage 19 rn rmrerampzpvrsyuzwipn “Nana s.n.r luvlhnrwm .. .r.... In my r... pflnlnnllly mm. dnuavlml vn .nuna Wm! [:2] Vn me uremnsvaneee, I gvanted Vsave Io commence mmcxai rewew pmceedmgs only 1n respect (:1 reliels (a), lo) and (e)and me orders sough| m reueug) o1Enclosure 1. J» Amaneex Slngh enn Slrlgh Judge Hugh Coun Kuala Lumpur Dated. 25'" December 2023 Counsel M the llcunl Anand Ra}. Foong Pm cn. and Cheang wen we Messrs sneam Dmamore a. Ca Ragneenmlve of Aklnmey General Nur Suraya Bmu Am Federa\ Counse\ The Altomey General 3 Chambers counsel oflha 2'“ Pulallvl Rosgondem Aennna Ramzan AM, senxor Revenue Counsel and Surani cne Ismasl. Revenue counsel Revenue Attorney. rnlana Revenue Board. 1:: m n-n\unamn2pP:syQlWLw «we. sum ...n.mn e. med m my u. nrW\n|U|Y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Dalam Barkers Akla Cukal Pendanalan. 1967, khususnya Seksyen-Seksyen 2. 5, 42 din 11:, Jadua1 3 am Jaauax 5 qmauum Jadual 5 dvpinda uleh Aha Cukax PendapaIan(Pmdaan)2n19) Dan Dalam perkara Aka Cukai Pendapavan 1 nan) 2019 Dan Dalam perkara Aluran 53 Kaedah—Kaedah Mahkamah‘ 2012 dan Perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akla Mahkamah Kehakvnan. 1964 Amara Felronas Dagangan Berhad . Pemnnan Dan Pesumtuaya Khas Cukaw Penuapacan 2 Kama Pengarah Hasul Dalam Negen Responder» Respunuen m n-nwanan.-n2pP1syQlWLw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! cuss: mama Kg 1) Yuan sarip Hamid 5 Anal v Palco Malaysia Sdn and [1995] 2 MLJ A42 2; E v Oomplrnll .s.nual M Inllnfl R mm [1970] 2 ML.) 111. 3) Sinuro L-asinq Sdn Bhd v Kolua Fonglrah uasil Dalam Mogul [moo] 4 cm :34 4) Consolidated Goldfinlds Pll: v inland Revalluo Commlsslonors [1990] 2 All ER 395 5; Govlmmlnt olmluyala 5. Arm vJagd|s Slngh [1 957} 1 cm 451 6) Majlla Flrbarldzvzn Pulau Plnlnu v Syarikal aolurizsama. umn somaguna Sungal Gnlugov o-ngau Tlnggungln (199913 cm as 7; Malaysian mun Unian conguss L Ors v Manml Tonnga. Alr aan Komunlkun .1. Ann! [2014] 3 MLJ 145 5) WRF Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasinnal Bhd [2012] 4 MLJ 295 9) Tongku Muhlnmud Fakhry Paxra llml sulun Ismnll P-in v. Vang Maha Mulia Pemanglm Raia Kelanlan a on [2011] 1 MLJ128 m hunlunEkaD2pFiiyQlW|-Vi “Nair s.n.l ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he nflnlnallly mm: glam. VII .mm mm 10) Dr Mlnhul Jeyakumar Davaraj v Fuyuam Mogzu Malzysiz [2013] 2 cu I009 11) Tan sn Mun H] Aman 5. or: v. Tun namk sen Panglima Hi Juhar Hi Mahiruddin &Or: [2021] 3 cu 57>. 11 m hun\unEkoD2pF|iyQlW|-Di mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [:1 On 1am Jmy 2023, x auoweu me appncauon lnr weave to commence xummal rewew Drocesdmgs in me mam (or me mnowmg renew (a) an order of cemoran to quash the case slaled by me Specxal Cnmrmssloners 0! Incam: Yax (“sen-) aanea am May 2021 In respsa ohax appeals No PKCF(R) 32/2010, 293/2014, 294/2014‘ 295/2014‘ 296/2014. 297/2014, 295/2014,15/2015, 15/2015‘ 17/2015‘ 16/2015,19/20W5. I I9/2015. 135/2015, 135/2015, 137/2015, 138/2015. 139/2015, 51/2016, 239/2015, 290/2015. 291/2016. 292/2016 dan 31 man wnoemmg me Years ac Assessment 2002 to 2015 purponedw Issued by me son under varflslranhs 34, 37 and as Schedule 5 of me ITA (pnor w amenamem), m Mn\unE|nW2pFAsyQlW|-Di «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! (bl an order of cerlrorerrloquasn lhe case slaled bylhe SCIT da|ad 6'“ May 2021 lor lax appeal No. FKCP(R) 1029/2017 cunceming the Years or Assessmenl 2ul6 purportedly lssued by lne son under paragraprrs 34, 37. and as scneaule 5 el me ITA (error to zmendmenul and (c) an order alcermren la queen the ease s\a|ed bylhe son dated em May 2021 «or tax appeal No PKCPIR) ea/2019 corlcsmlng me veers or Assessment 2017 eurporlealy lssued by we saw uneer paregrapns 34‘ 37, and 35 Schedule 5 er lne VTA [prior to arnenanlenll [2] The leave 04 mun la commence ludlclal revlew preceeulngs was sougnl under Order 53 Rules el ceun zmz Pveserlt at lrle neenng var leave were also Federal counsel reereeenllng me Anomay General and senlor Revenue counsel «or me 2"‘ pu|a|Ive responeenrl Dlreemr General at Inland Revenue (“DGIRW wrrern I divested lo appear and submit an me rssues valsed l did se given lne peeullar elrcurnsranees al lne rnsranr case and leuna ll necessary ler suen lnlnle The course before me IS permllled based on me oflen-quoled ease of Tlun rn hure\nreE|nW2pF|SyQlW|-Di “Nana s.n.l lurlhnrwm be u... e may r... nflfllnnflly enrl. dnuavlml VI arlurm vmul Sarip H--nid 5. Mar v Patco Ma ysia Sdn End [1995] 2 MLJ 442. My reasons 10! aHowIng weave are as [allows BACKGROUND [3] The appflcanh Pemnas Dagangan aemadr is a summary of Pemviarn Nasmnal Eerhad and has been carrying an we busmess ovaumssnc markalmg oYpelm\eum products and aperanon avserwee sumans. The appncam appeaxed to me SCIT on (he assessrnsm made by ma new forms nbove smsa vasrs cl Assessmenls. The muss belcre the sow were‘ (u wnsmer the capital exoendvlure munea by \he apphcanl an pelml staunn canepxes and meta! name hghls (sgacusx canopy hghungflor ms wnsxrucnan at new pelml s(alIons and/or me rerum.smnenL renavalinnr revamp, and/or upgradmg of us anslmg pauox sfialions qualmes (er Cap|Ia\ Auowances on planl and mammary under Schedms 3 0! me In and (n) wnenner pensmes Imposed upon me appncam for the Years 0! Assessmem 2:107 and 2009 under Senvon 11312)of\he VTA ws vahd and masenalfle, m hun\unE|nW2pF|syQlWl-Di «mm. s.rn lunhnrwm s. U... a may he nrW\ruH|y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max [41 The son rssued rnree Decidrng Ordas and «urea “case slated“ due lo we drnsrenr wrung dv me Iodgment of me appalls tar me mfferern Years M Assfismenl. As a resuu mree appeals were med to me Hugh cdrm «mm Ihe decision or the sow. While me was appeals are pendrng havdre |ms com rne appurcanx med me rnseanr iud\cIa\ revrew applrcarrnn seekmg leave var, amongst mhersr me above soared orders As can be seen. me annlrcanr rs eneusngrng me rnres ‘case snared“: m ler me Vaars of Assessmenl 2002 no 24115, (n) hr the Year dmssessrrrenr 2016: and am) lor me Year of Assessment 2017 [51 The mam gmunds of revrew were met (rt me case surrsd Vanna vears MAssessmerIl 2002 In 2015 was nor signed by aH three pane! members of me scrr as reqmred by paragraphs 37 and aa 0fScI1edu?e 5 or the ITA (belore me ITA was amended by me Income Tax (Amendment) An 2019) and only oonxarnad 4 shon paragradns of have facts aunndgn vnlurmnuus evrdenoe nad dean adduced m h-n\nnE|nrr2vF1syQlW|-Di “Nana s.n.r nanhnrwm .. med It: may r... mn.rrr mm: dnuamnl VI mum WM (H) me case slated hr the Year e« Asseasmem 2015 a suhslarmzl power: of |M aaruanls follawed (ha C3$B sum for Years 0! Assessment 2002 Lo 2015, which ws mvahd m law and only cunlamed 4 shorl pafigraphs or basxc (acts aflhuugh vclummous evxdence had baen adduced. (Hi) lhe case sIa|ed (or me Year 01 Assessment 2017 a substarmal pomon at the mutants tauawea me case slated (or veers at Assessmem 2002 to 2015, which Is mvallfl m law and only comamea A shun paragraphs at basic «acts anhougn volummous ewdence had been adduced [3] u was alleged that the case stated were Invalid and will cause prejudxce la [ha appficanl m its respecuve appea\s agamsl (he decision 07 the SCIT The mallzr was compounded wllh |he (act that aH wee panel members 0! me sew which heard me appeals had retired u was contended lhat m lhe arcumsvanees, me applmanl had no chance but to come belore «ms Caun vra wdxcual review to seek the appmpnals rshef. m nanwnnannrrzvwsyfizwtw «we. sm.‘ ...m.mm be me. a may s. mmu-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum am APPLICANTS SUBMISSION m The appncann suomna than the mree “case slated“ luvlhe reasons siaceo above are invaiio. irieompiela and rnloculale, IFI pamcuiarlhe case scaled mu no| wmpiy wnn paragraphs 34, :5, 36, 37 and as oi soneouie 5 of me WA. The arguanie case in favour oi granling me reiiei sought at me subslanhve hearing which may be me rasuivanx ouusorne poi Ynrward by me applicant can be summarised as loIk7ws' Ia) wnenner me “case siaioxr ior me Years ol Assessmeril 2016 and 2017 are Invalid, incomplete and inaccurate for (ii a subslarilial ponion oi me contents rouoweo or reneo upon me case sraiao for vears or Assessrneni 2002 In 2015 (H) which contains only 4 snon paragrapns o1 basic vans aiinougn voiummous evidence had been adduced‘ in) whether me non-compliance VNVUI oaragrapn 3A oi soneouie 5, mac IS in say, whether lhe liilure to prepare a man case sla|ed lovcommem oi me pames IS iacai or not, and ru n-nionannrrzvfisyfilwbw “None s.n.i luvihnrwiii .. met! a may r... annn.ii-y MVMI dnuaviml VI ariurm mi (0) whether we non-ocmnhanoe ma paragraph 37 and as av Schedme 5 Is fatal, that V510 say, whemar ma [allure lo sxgn the case stated hr the Years 0! Assasmen! 2002 I0 201 5 rs fatal, [3] Thus. the gmund oi revnew reused rs me estabhshed ground of .1/egam ATTORNEV GENERAIJS SUBMISSIONS [01 Fsaarax coansax subrmlled (ha! weave augm not be gramea on me bass ma: ma appncam had already med appea\s agamsx lhe respective uecmmg orders of we saw under sub- paragraph um av Schedule 5 ar1(helTA The remedy pmviaed by statute had been ulnhsed and the Hugh Court rs serzed wnn wnsdlcnon over me manars n lollcws. Iherelore, max ma -nsxam Audxual rewew apphcalmn ra mvanaus and vexahaus and an abuse ohhe prooess onna mun u was argued ma me wssue or the auagaa deficvenmes anne case stated ougm lo na aaaxc mlh m me Hugh cnun m which |he appeals were filed. 10 r~ ru-nwnnannrrzrafisyfilwhw «ma san-w nmhnrwm a. met! a may r... MWHIVVIY -mm: dnuamnl VI anurm war

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24NCvC-1572-06/2022

PEMOHON TARC EDUCATION FOUNDATION RESPONDEN Orang Yang Menduduki di atas tanah yang dipegang di bawah Hak Milik H.S.(D) 69596 PT 2890, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Malaysia

This decision is made in the interest of justice and upholds the rights of the legal landowners to their property. The application of the law must be respected, and the unlawful occupation of property cannot be tolerated in a lawful society. [60] This Court is mindful of this socio-economic problem. There will be no costs awarded in this matter.

10/01/2024

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=25e35e58-2050-4636-9105-f23f09fbb039&Inline=true

10/01/2024 16:29:51 WA-24NCvC-1572-06/2022 Kand. 26 S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WF7jJVAgNkaRBfI/CfuwOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—2dNCvC—1572—U5/2022 Kand. 26 JD/01/202A 15:29-51 IM me HIGH COURT IN MALAVA Al’ KUALA LUMPUR IN me FEDERAL TERRIYORY, MALAYSIA om ATING summons No. WA-IANCVC-1572-06/2012 BETWEEN TARC eoucnmon FOUNDATION (comrmv No. Iomzrm) Pulrmee semun onus YANG MENDUDUKI nu Ans TANAH um: ouaeems m BAWAH HAK mux r<.s,(n) wsu M 2390, MUKIM senu=AK. DAERAH KUALA LUMFUR, WILAVAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA uesenmms GROUNDS or JUDGMENT [1] Before we Conn 15 a vammar cun7hc(—Mo Dames enlangked m a and mspune. On me we stand me ngnlfm landowners assemng man dawn to the pmperly, mus an Ina omen steadfast occupiers argue lhelr wong-uanmng possasswn, The mamm. ma registered landowner onhe \and new undev N s (D) 69595 PTZBBU‘ Mukvm Selapak. Daerzh Kuala sm wm.AvfigNk2Rav\/cmwun mm. Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: flan-mm VII mum pm Lumpur, Vlfllayah Persekumzrl, lesonea lolms app allon vlde anglnaling summons (05; under Order 89(1) Rules cl com 2012 (Rucj For ease ul lelelenee ll 5 reproduced here. ‘Where a pevson l:/alms pclssesalorl ol land wmm Ile alleges I: accumsd sale/y by a person or persons (nut balng a tenant oi Inrlants ho/dlng ovsr allnv mo tnrmmatlarl of the tenancy) who Irllsved mm or mmomsd rn Occupation wllhoul ms lam. or consult at mu all any pvldsoes-my In [Illa al Iva, Ina pmcndmgs may be brought by orvglrlntmg summons m ucoomancc to me pravlxlons ollhis om: ~ (21 The occuplers owcsod lhls as on me cnnlanllon |ha| mm are ("able Issues lnal ' Courl ml»-.1 detemllne llvougn vlva woes avlaanee. Thus, lms calm errlbatked on me mammlous eumlnsmrl 91 me facts evened by bolh pamus I/.1 ensure p-oper appllcallon M me legal plecsaenls la] Undisputed IS me lacl that me Plalnml IS the righllul legal and beneficlal awner Mme lane Theta is a selllemem on me land knuvm as Kampung sella Jaye, Selapak The Plalnllffs claimed lnal ll has never glven hcense nr pemllsslon In me de1erlflanl5(‘0oculzlers'| Inoecupy me Lam we occuplels have been cocunylng me land mnmll the Flalrlnlfs mnseru In lnmlg on M Early was 5 lm «me me OGGIADIQII conlmaeu |hal Kampung Semi Jay: wan ssvabllsnea H: Iocallon was a small ponlon at me land — 2 sm wn Jvfignufiml/Cmwofl “Nair s‘.n.l navlhnrwm .. l... w my .. nflnlnnflly mm. mm. VI nFluNa Wm! aonsenn and/or nuance «mm the Plannffl mus| danivervacann possessm to ma Pnannnm. [as] In Manaysna, me legal namscspe steadfastly nepels any rnomon M adverse pnssetuorn aganns| ma Stale, No mallerme msmrable passage ol hm: dlmng won me land may have been ucwpied by ma Ocoupnans‘ ms savamngn aulhomy and ownershnp vested in me snane remam unasasnnanns rna docmne on adverse posassscn, whnch may nna us plnce tlsswhmu. ilands nneffecnual and urnavanlmg agannsl (ha mighly baslnan on the Sale‘: nghlful claims Yhus. oncu lha Govemmam hid alienalod nno nancn Ind sand .n ovnna nns Pnsnnm, n| mailers non when dawn me hmslnna n was oarvtnandad In ma slnll unongaa no me Govammernl men use Imm-nu sun Bind v Vang ran Huang [n 9551 n Mu 390) [371 Thns Conn mnnnar oarvenudad man nne second Issue rinsed — man ma Pnannnnnv had knawledge of me Oocupners an nns rand and man A had gnvurn pannnssmn lo ereclelenncalcahlesm19BI,was anao non a mama issue nn fact cements the «ac: nnan nna land nndeed belonged nu ma Flsnmtfl whereby pemussion ms requnred The Pnannnnrs wnnan aunaann nl unsan mearfy snanea nnan me pane: and cables some be fined amsiaa me college nsnae and nnan may ware raqunred k: be removed once me namn was wanted back by ma Fnannnnn, Those zxpressed wwds were clear and nan no mum la! aouan an imagnnauon [351 %n snnce 2022 wnan me cnnsentwas revoked and ma Flannlrflglva nonnce no vaule ann dahvsry on vacann possassnon. ma pnavnous pamnlssnon no men anacnna pans; -nu cables outznda ma campus whnch were In be ramomn om): nna pnannnnw I-qunru so. oanno| n any way moms a Irnabla nssue Yhal rngnn |o rsnnann on ma nano was nannnnnanea 11 am wflnnvfignufimn/cmwoa «mm. smun luvnhnrwm .. U... a my n... mnnn-y mums flnuavnml VI srnurna v-man upon me rBceIp| oi me notices in qun «mm ma Piainmi As new by /nimmc Sdn Bhd (supra), me Piainiiw was ex aaniio/usuziaa annuea |L7 ma renal sougm M vacani possassion (See Essa Alalaysln Blmld v Hills Agency (M) Sdn Him 5 0n[1994] 1 MLA 740) [:39] me argumem |hmwn by me oewpieia inai ins Plainml am not ouaci lo the RMe1o,uoo aiiocaiau ia supply elecmaly inai aiiaciau iia land 15 nm a lnuble isaua ii muld rum in any way amounl lo awarding ina Oocuxxars aqmlahll righls, wnai niuia iagai ones The iiiia M ma iana belangsd to (he Plmnlm in ma aaiianos av ma piainiws mnaaaing in allowing ins occuaiaiaio mmflmen Ihe una, ina occupiais oanrioldo so (See um: ssnrosa sun aria y Janaman ui Sirmnppan a. On‘ [2022] 7 MLJ 92:; [40] The last man man; were anon: on me pan of ma Flainhfl in d\$€u§S\urIS of velocaling iiie oocupiais sa mai ii couki aniay is land did not mean that ii was a «name issue The ieasan deafly rested on via «an inai whatever social and civic oontnbunrm ina Flamflfl may have inxenaea uia no! change ine fad man me Flammf was iiia iagisiaieu landowner in ma ianu who is enmlad In ma vacant possession oi Ils awn ianu oiscussiuns oi ieiocauan cannoi ainuuni In granting me OGOUDIEVS oonsenland/arlicanoe in fact, na me opposite. iiaiso cannmbe equa|ed |u assuming «ha Oucumers equity That (act remains manna Flamml niuai be aHL1wsd ia enjny as land ana iniiisa I| as It uaains appraaiiaia nia Omupiars ma did noi have consani main |ha Piainiiu canno| he allowed |o caniinua |u siay in me iana. inis can iagaiiy be uaaii uiin suinnianiy 599 am: L-n-nu Dlvllopmlnl sun Blvd y Ponduduk-Punduduk ylnq mondudukldi (I: r. an nsm; 1s1a79— Hsw; mm, uuiiim Ptantunq, Duvlh John! BIIIIII [1 my 3 ML! 25 (l1iH\e\d 12 am wnuwsaniaaaiizcnmoa “Nair s.n.i navihnrwm be UIQG a my i... nflmnuflly MIMI dnuaviml y. nF\uNfl Wm! ‘In any case‘ ma law msenm/es me derandams (mm runnareryoymg ma bounly gr»/en to (hem by me pzammi all these years The ueranaams‘ wnlmued presence wuu/11 mllllale agams! me pla/nlrfs mdolszmbls we am1Isga( rvghl: " my Thus, aemwmg me word: auusuea Zamun All m me said use - ‘own 1/ ma ocaupnlmn av me /Ind by me Occuprars ware legal at the emu, In: nonlmuad eecupamm may subnqusrvlly be sufiilsed mm Wags/rty The cumin! and plasanf awner may pvocnd by way of an anqinalirvg summons to yes! (ha lrupuser - [421 The pmm vazsad by me Oecupiers that impused deeper senmny by ms Cmm was their cemennen Inal Kampung seua Jaya was pan eme Govemmenfs Green Book Plan, The Direcbon m 1974, came: Arahan 1 of lhe Green Beok Plan was a stralegwc devebpvnenl plan immducsd by me Gavemmem specmcauy for me Federal Temlcly oi Kuila Lumour ‘nus Man was aan M an mmauve In guide and manage me eevelepmem of Kuz\a Lumpur, lowsmg on various aspeoa such as when pwannmg, mrrasuucmre‘ susvainammy, economic gmwm. and eueiax development [431 From me aoeumem zdduoed by me Oecumels. me Green Book Pian was azmau |o addms eauas velamd tn umamzanen, (raflxc congsuion‘ anvlmnmanlal suslamabvllly‘ and socnscnnnmlc amlopmem wdmn Kuala Lumpur u Vwuaed euanegxes cm enhancmg public xraneponemn, grssn spaces, amueebre houmng‘ acamme oppnnunllres‘ me wmprcving ma merau quamy av his [or msmenle. u locusad an (In II: nnluml Vanguagel is em wn.mgma»zawc».wea «we. em ...m.mm a. HIQG e may he mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI mma v-ms! (a) Fenggunaan lanan yang sepenunnya. (tn) Tanaman Jzngkapendek (Sehngan darn auxan—sa«ngan). my Pelkabvnan cam blrxelumpok (:1) Rancangan Ternakan (9) Rancangan peuhara xkan amawar m Pamnsarsn yang bark, (g) Prqek-orojsk kaail [44] u we nol suaxa what was wnlendsd by me Dccupxers The Obcupiars had run! adduced any amance In Show ms: Kamplmg Sena Jays was s part 01 n ms oaun men Mudnad me land we «mm ms Land cmoa There was no record at any lranslev av pvopemes |o any 01 me Occupxers uursuarnle ms Green am man Themaflevtoma Graen Book Man, ms we and puscnaaa agnemem was lxacmad on 25 91979lfour yams man which saw me land in ma Pmmm mere was nu mndance man il was «a be sunpcuea m the Gnsan Beak Pun or any other Imencas or pennlsuon furlhn Dccupsers to remain in occupauon Mme land wrm is on me omia: rewards vs Iha| me mm was that ms and was aranuenea to Ihe Plamlm [451 As me waw gnwemmg summary procedure undur Order as nut: is sums to mac under omar 14 Rec‘ «ms Cowl determined max as mare are nu lnable I§ues matwarvanta full heanng‘ the mdevsaugm (why me mavnnw uugm m be gramaa {See mm: wing Wa@ Chew Wang wan 5 sm wn.mamaawc».woa «M. an.‘ nmhnrwm .. U... a mm s. mm-y mm. flnuamnl VI mum Wm! J 015 y 00;: Song Cherry [1994] 1 on 313, Bank Megan Malaysia y Mohdlsnuil A Dis (19921 I on (Rap) 527; [46] we Is (rile mat axulorallon on land‘ 1>ons|ruc||on m bundmgs and mfraslruclures. paymenxs av unlmes and esseesmenze do not make me oceupauun of me land lamul man relersnae In persons who acwpy or same on mm of pmpeny wnnoux legs! owrvalshsn, pemsexan er ugh! In do m Iegex |a|rns unen use me reference ol "squzI(ars" (see me swm Nla v Nq Nyuk Mal a 0!: 1199212 MLJ sea) Hence, Order 59 mo pmvmes me lnwful wlulmn la em: squallen by way of summary pruceedmgs [471 The Oowuiars whom Imsconnlound In be squatters. have no legal or eqmcame ngms nu remain an and mm halangs lo lhe naqwsh-zred landowner They can be summimy nwclad under one: as (see mum rokayaxr Fmparly Sdn Bhd u see: Kak s-my [2001] 1 MLJ 595, Lu Loy A 0/5 wan Kam Sang A 0r:[2U1B] 3 MLJ 240. Cahuyl nmuu) Sin and v Orlng-Orany yang mongnlali am" sebagai panqa A Dr: [1999] 3 cm 257‘ um Snmosa Sin and (supran [451 were dehvenng lms decenon, me Caun Inwled ouunse\s for all names In addmena! sunnm on equname expeclahons and iv were are so, me issue at compensabon. Wrillen submrssmns were meu Na gultu E an [491 The weimm submilled as me Oocumers are nquanem s\mpHcI|ar based on me eweence. equny duel nc| and cannal name no (he ma nflne Oecumen The Phlnnfl emphasand me emdenee lha| showed mm were :3 m wn.memaeewc».woa «me. me nmhnrwm a. H... a may a. emu-y em. dnuamnl VI mum v-max never any assumnces gwen by the Plamhfl (0 any M me Docupwers tn conhnue wnn me occupauon ems land The P\zm|M suhmllled man as name. as me vsglslered randomnel trumps any posswkie ngm av me Occupners which wars not adduced er pleauea (55340 and 34: NLC) [so] The P\amuH musuaxea amular fealuvas m me case deemed by me Conn av Appaav .n Ahmld Shnll/y ramu am: y Nlk sum. Znldlh :4] Wm Mend 2.14 (20141 5 cu an The defendant m that case claimed In squnlabll ngm m occupy me ‘and as a gralullous I-came aa me was .n aaaupanon anne mmgarow me am an me land pnor to ma purchase oflha land by |hi p\amW and lhelrinifar arms In rum sne came that an. nwnad |he bungalow Much ane wax given me lIgh| la mm by me p-eyiem pmprismv and am) as wnfirmed by me Sylnah Conn n was held lhal sne cuula not be dawnbed as a «enanc couple wulh equny aims wane because amangs| mars, mars was na such lzndk:Id~|enanI relationship and (have was never any payment for ram A! we ux ms held ‘In our vrew, me was of grzluilnus hcence being able Ia occupy an a(rsn.!Iad /and owned by someone else permanent/y araerperuawy aner bemg given due names to gun, /s repugnant to the concept or mdeleaslhr//ty or me of a registered proanelor as provvded unaer sun and me oanoepl sgamst admss posammn by rana occupatron, as exp/rcmy azaream an arms NLC ' [En] me mine by ma Court M Aaaea: mat the aarenaanx was not a |ananI mumad ay eqmly anlwerad ma Vast queslmn .n ma appeal vmich was 4 n was lnund Ina! lhu aemaam was a Iunam. was Inn auammv bound by n and mus| pay a rsasanaaus wmpensahon to me aevendanx my her In :5 am wfluvfignufiawcmwoa «ma. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e U... a my a. mn.u-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! mauve: vacant posses n 0! me and sunae me answer was on ma negauve — lha| me delendanl was 7:01 a Ienanl, ma plamlfli was not onugamea In any way m pay any compensahon for vacant paasessian of ms own land, I| was aaauau at paaa - n rs nur waw mar even rune delerld-snl wufdbe dssmbed as a tenant coupled Mn an aquny, ma: aquuy was no! to bu me: by Ina p/amt:/I Wllalavorraplasanlahon and or ancouvagomsrvt, rlany. In the aavenctan: m comma: ma surd bungalow mun was made by mu Ruhlah. The deranaanrs mcourse n maven ngamsl Nfk Ruman who has to seusly her equuy Io! any com o! expensu mawad m ma conumcrion ofme ounga/aw house‘ 4 any’ 152) As to equuame exoaaamans, ma com Ielers la the daemon bylne Fudeul own In vxxm) Sdn and v Punqnrlh nnan dun s ‘In John! [21121] 5 ML! 495. The doctrine annaugn aoceprea m the Mslaysxan Jurisprudence. cannot ovemde me exams snanmmy power vested -n me 5Va(e Aumorityman had a Ienahed me land and sold n to me P\aimifl The Oucuplers ma not at any pom: \n «ma IVn\d any we or exprased ncence that permitted mam na remain on me land. [531 In me appncauon anhe Vega! pnnapxascu Ihls malvevln me os, we ooun n. buund |u aaaaa man me Owumers have no aquname nghls against ma Fmrmfl Evan n ma Occupwers av: recognised as lananls mupuea wnn equily an Ims as Ins Dccuplers have Med m anew such). man aquuly ha: xong been me! xx sansfiad by me Gav:mmen| smce eany was In slay an me land rem nae unm new man Ina ngnllul owner damlnds for ma dalwery afvacant posxenmn anna nana 17 am wn.manmawcn.woa «ma. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e met! a my a. mn.ny am. flnunmnl VI mum v-max [54] T7115 Coun re unable on agree mm are Occumers repeauea eonlennun mat me Plamllfi had granted Ihem appmax men xne elecrnc cables and pains were aHowed «o be placed outside the campus lame ms 45 because mere was me: clear condmon mauhe Oocuplers were lo remove them shcmd ma Plzmlm assure vacant pusyassnn :2! me wane The zrgunrenr Iha| me marnun an nnr ahjecl I» ma soyernrnenrs esseurnce or RM67o,ano «or (he sunwy cl axemncny one no: make mam equrlahle hcance anne ‘and [551 mu case L11 s. . Mum! SE71 Bhd v Ahmad Amlrudln xnrnunamn 1 Or: [1999] 5 cm 54 rem-raa to by me oocuprerr had me obyruus d\s1mguIshIng reennee Unlike In mar case, no evidanca of cansent ornioence rmnr me Govlmmlnl glvenlo me occuprers co occupy or ocrmnue to occupy me land mere was no eyrdence mat me sane 07 me land mne Plernwrwes sumac! In sum cansenl nrnoence Al me opposite, me P\amM ccnererenay mamtamed mat «hey had neyer granxee pennissran In any 01 me Oecupuels In uocupylhe land [53] In as-aessmg «ms es and amvlng aA me ooncmsmns. mu coun naa consudsrsdm me|e uulme ordensjusly. In light uflhe eyraence prssenled and the pnnumes at ‘aw, |ms coun concludes mar lhe ooeuprers have no eqnny (whether exoecvanons uv ulherwlse) agamsl me PVAIMN II wnmd no| be lawful ner equnlble tor Ihis Cam la mer that me Flawfl nay campensanon la me Occupiars ro relocale and vacalz xne Wand Yhl : or [571 It Is hereby ordcrad mar me oceuprers curnnuy oowpyvng ma land wimoul Vagzl ngm or pennresron. shall years ms nrennsas wmnn 15 1: sm wflnrvfigmafiawcmwoa «mu. sum nmhnrwm re med n my r... MEVHIHIY mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-max mon|hs lmm ms dale av mus Jlldgmenl It 5 «me: cmerea than these mdMdua\s shall deluxe! up vacan! possession ov me new m me P\ain|ifl me Is the righllul legal awners (say Fzflure Inccmpry snan mun m the eniormmenloimws wdgemenl mmugh an lega\ means avauame, Including but um mum to, me assnsunce at law snlurcsman| zmhmmzs. [59] ms daemon I: mm m m. mmsnanusm and uphmus ma nghls oilha Vegal landowners lo mu pmpeny. The appllcahon of the law must 1:. mpmaa, and ms unlaw1u\ occupahon av pvoperly clrmc| be lnlsrmad m a lawn! suclaly. [so] nus ccun Vs m\n¢fu\ of mu socio-acnmumwc uroblern There wm be no com. awarded "I this mailer DATED (9 DECEMBER 2023 r*{U\M//L ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDHZIAL COMMISSIONER H|GH COURT w MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Fe: m Plan-ml! Bryan Chen Lzang Y: T/rv Shook LM 5 Bok .9 sm wn.mgmmv:».woa «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! Fm (ha Delsndantr Muhammad Far: Kama! Jaalav, Zulhazml snan/r 5 Zambn rsa T/n Shanlm SameerKama/ & Co 2a sm wfluvfigwufiawtzmwoa «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! appmxrmately 25 acres oHhe174 29 acres av the wane (accommg to ma census repon obumsd by me Pnamm. [51 Fifly—1wo years ago In 1971 me Gnwemrnen| on Malaysia granted to Tunku Abdul Ranman College (me preoursov enlwy of me Plamlm) land (mm wamenmn Eslala (on wmcn Ihe land s4l5)VovIheourL1(mclmn Mme FI.Im|M's campus A pomon :71 Wzrmshum Esme was aim grankau to Syankal Pammahnn Pmwm Karapsan sun sna zswm. [91 on 111197: Ibo land we: allanalad la Pesumrwa Tanah Perseku|u:n's(VfF). me rouow-nu yuaron I 2 1974 Inc Fedoval Terrilory oIKuala Lumpur was astzbhshod [71 The wlannmas awane onhe squ=(1Brpmh\erns on me wamebum EsIa|e wands lhal mcmded me wanna m quesmon hem‘ and had pamclnaled In dvscussvons |L7 remave mem. Between 19771979‘ several meefings were held wnn me Gavemmenl regammg me am auocaumu, squaner Issues. demavcalim ol lands. etc There was no Vmlhan to mess mselmgs [31 on 22 319791112 P\amIxlfs auocauan o1 wane wls dmenulned and n was agreed Iha| me lam he saw lo me P\a|nml lur RMI,2ul,603. [91 On 9 5.1575019 Plawnml mformed ms Government man u mlended 10 lanes the nana and man: lo: nna eovammenrs asnlsunoe lo manage me removal of ma squallen soonest nu] On 25 9 1979 an agrnemsm var sale wax axaculsd mu-en Ine PKaInIMaM1|m Gmmmam la vurchau om wand (01 RML201 mm sm wm.AvfigNnaRm\/cmwoa «mm. s.n.‘ lunhnrwm .. .7... n my n. mn.u-y mum: mmn VI mum Wm! [11] on 441931 aadan Kerajain Mas;/arakat Kampung Vwrmaya Selapak requested consent «mm me F\amM ear the mslallanon nl electncal poles an Ine xanu. rne Fiamml gave us mnsenl on me lullcwmg condmons (3) The required s\sc1rIcal (‘ables and poslx In be consnmaaa an mm pan aims and man was oulslda me campus fence‘ and 1:1) Such poles am cables shall be vumavad when me mmnnn decides |c razssen us possession oflhose parts 01 has land [12] was a luller dam 29.31933 swx wormed ma Plamofl nnau RM2.500.000 was naaana xo mama me Omuxxsrs from me Mamlifls land The Plaxnlflf mulled In SPPK max n could rm aflnvd W5 and wauld seek monetary suppon «am me Government [13] on 14.6.1939 Jahatan Agama ls\am vwlayan Persekuluan had registered Surau Madmah Kampung Sena Jaya m it: hsls of surau/maarasah anna Federa\ Temwry. ml On zmzam the man: Honaulzme Pnme Mxmsler then. Dr Mahalmr Manama, approved me proposal to suppfy eleclnclly (0 Kampung Sena Jays, Sexapak. [151 on 4 3 2002 were was a newspapar aruclu mat pmalanea new: that one or me pxmamannanans uanaa than ma Government would allot RMETQODU to pro»/Ida axacnncuy In Kampung sen: Jaya am wnnv»gnmawcn.woa «mm. snnuw ...n.mn .. U... a may he nnnnun mum: mmn VI nF\uNa v-max [16] On is H 2002 one at ma 0ux:up\eIs' appncaunns «or van was repeated on ma bass line! me land ma belonged an FTP [17] on M22002 FTP Ilansfarred us mmersmp to me Plammf as aocumenm on me We document [101 aaman 2010-2012. mate war: unsuceessmr anemvls by me FIamuIVlaue(harwilh Dewar» Eandamya Kua\s Lumpur man; In lemme ma “matters [101 In oaabar 2019‘ ms F'|im(if1 commiulnnad a census up asclruin ma mnmies o1 ma squalter on ws Land. Nuwuvar. it was drlficuk la ormcluswew asceruin all wdurmlses Mme squallers on its land [20] On 15 2 2022 me Plairmff xsuea demands Ihmugh Its lawyers rsqwmg me Oocuplers to vacate the Land‘ pm they hava not done so A day alter-on 1a 2 2022 a medxa szatemenwas Issuad bya puma: pany max appeared to be on behalf pr me Occuplers that seemed up acknowledge that the Occupwels were nox mgislered owners M the wand and were occupying >1 vmthout mnsen| ov ncenoe. Thooccug can mlon [211 The dale ol Ihe Fliinufrs ownalsmp was dupulad rm Ocmplels avenue man umil 2002 the Land omaa naa acknowiedgad max ma wanu wax um pa vn> a through me Lana cm. s uanar da|ed1a11.20D2lo ma Mme occupms who had applied lorllnd at Kampung saua Jayn, Mukvm Sulapak. The laflav slated Ihal lhe mm W“ ma|a1PYP s ham under me We Hsm) 69596 PT 2090 Mukml Smapok which was me hnd clannad as m wn.mgnman;c».wpa «mm. s.nn lunhnrwm .. 0.... a may he nrW\n|U|y mum: flnuamnl VI mum vmm the Plaimwrs Thus, .1 was submmad lorme Occuwers thal evldsmze ivcm me Land Omoe was vequued xa delermms me exact dz\e [221 The Occupier: cmmsd um um PIam|fl( had always acknumsdged ol [haw oucupzhun M me land They were petmmefl by me P\amIm expreslly and by mnflucl Yhe Plaxmwfs may dated 4: ms: max ma aflnwad Ior me amcum of me a\e::mca\ pores oumde the [once :11 us wflsge was relervsd ‘:7 Thus, u was submilled ma: me nammc eughi to be snapped mm denymq mm In had given cnnsenl In me oocuum tn rsrrlam on me land [231 The Occuwars uxmcenaea mm the Plainm um um amen! lo lhe ewemmanrs auocaum av RM67\7.I}00 for me xuvnly at e1ac1ncI|y to Kimvung geua Jayz back an mm [241 The Occupwers submmad man they were na| squanivs svnphcilerun lhe bass max may had mnsemana «meme mm the owners predeceased Ihe P\amM and a\so me P\a|nn‘W wseli upon me pumhassaflhe wand from me Government [251 n was me aaammal submuslons by me oeeupms man the Plamlnl mus uksn sums |c Iesalve mi; rand wssue ms, aocaramg lo me Oncupwers could bu seen lnmugh me maelmgs allended by me P\a\nlM and me cams wt oonducloo (251 u was lunhar argued mm me Gavammsnl had acqumced and gwan mama to ma Oecupms at Kemuung Sella Jay: (:1 slay on me and as Kimpung sama Jay: was on at me villages Invalvod Vn Inn omen Bock Plan Thl Green am Plan by me eowummenc :77 Mawayua var ma sm wn.mgm»zawc».woa «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e H... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! Federal Temmry cl Mahysla was dwrecled as pnanty by (he Right Honuurable Pnme Mimsterlhen, Tun Hap Anaux Razak Damk Husseum an 20 v2 «974 The Oecupiers oomended |ha| me pmpasal was m huuse and ucornmodate me mmzary and veterans me had vougm for the century’: mdependence [211 The counsel (01 me oocupms arguad man man: am: by Ina Govammanl wnmbuled |o ma mum and wsllare of me Occumers oi Knmpung sum Jay: [23] II was the subrmsmns by ch» occupm mu Order an we 3 Rec was not wmphad wilh, rapmduosa here for Iasy reverence '(1) Thu plairmlfshafl ms m support Dime ougmallng summons an amdavn slahng » (a; ms rmmsnn me land.‘ 11:) me cimumslances m wmchms land has been oocupaed wnmom /n>sm>e at consenl and In which his claim to possess/on arms. am 1:) that he dons not know MI name nl any person occupymq the lam: who u not nar-nod In ma summons (2) Where we pramnir u unac/a am» taking mssanable maps to rdsrvllly wary palsofl oecupymg ms land for the purpose ol makmg mm a dslbndam, Ihe plarnlrlfsha/I slam in his amaawz that he has taken reawrvab/e steps {aescrmng mm; m 1 sm wn.mgmmv:».woa «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! rdsnmy the persons occupymg the land who am not named m me summon. " [291 An zppmauon lot summary nmoeeflmgs umsar om: as Rue rammed ms Plamlfll to lake rlasonable slaps In sdenhfy me perm occupying ma land wnn em ems»: men that was wounded on me msuumons acme Plamnfl, Ils avermtnl mac 1| was unama Ia asosnaln me mannm of me Ducuplars wns absurd accavdma Io me Occumars, The occupiers Mensa lo Llm Moon many 5 Anor v Pcnghunl 1202:; 1 ms «sue when the High Ccun mm mm by «mung to comply wilh om: 59 we 3 Roe. me moeecdms war: defective m Ina! case, me applicants‘ amavn dud nnIs1alstha|lhIy an mu knww me xisnmles of me mxumecs of mu wane ur man mey had «axon nasonaue Sun: «a asoenain mew iaemmes On me omsr handy m man case mere wen: avermenls that (he names had met In mscuss rssnhmons. mus me apphcanm muld have reasonably confirmed me xdenlmes 01 me aocupbers. llwas nan Ihallhe spemfic prwlsuons under Order as were not camphed mm and sum defects wee mmusame am may be deemed an abuse alme ocurl pmcss no] The Occupier: sunmmen that me Piamtifl had knawxeage ov me mammaa at (he Oocupmrs, but no valid reasons were scaled |c pmceeo man an; cs wmhoul nammg mum on ma: busis, ma Oocupwars argued manna nrdus prayed var by ma Plamml could not be duwcsed olby way ovsummary pmcacdmgt undav Omar as Rat: VMI me as. sm wmuvfigmafimw/cmwoa «mu. sum ...m.mm .. met! a my u. mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI .r\uNa Wm! Assessment by ml: Conn [:11 ms com me addresses Ihe Oewpisrs‘ mmp\aIn| met me rsquvemenl under me: as Rae was no|wmpHed wilh‘ .n pamcmzr Rule 3. ma Conn smmmsea me P\amM's alfidzmt and lcund max me Flamlifl had suffzmanlly averted Ms Interest nu ma land and me amumxances m mmmh nne land was occupied by me Owupuers wnlhmn ma Plammfs cnnssnl ana bounce. Regarding me rdanhues 01 me Ocouums, Ihe Pmnm nm oamnuasaunsa a canius upon in zow m axcanam me number and man s ov me occupms an (M land. me recon was sxiubned m the Plaml\ll's ilfidivn: It wls unhalned lM1i(wu\a not be daflmnvely and ::nmc\us4va\y asoonai 9fl0lE1dB7Il\|\=S allhe Ooouphu The Plamlfl euurd only remy on me eonsus moon luv gwdanca um spymximannn as n was an enormous and mmcun (ask amen me ma cf me land and ma number 01 sauaneus -n Illegal oucuuzlion nflhe land [32] ms coun rs sausnea manna P\ain(if1Inuk macucalsxensvo ndenhfy the mdmduals Involved Ihmugh a census but could nm nay on n as com pmoHha| each \nd\vIdua\ can be named as a wemanx In his 05 u was noted. as stated In me amdawm that me Plamnflmed mumple umas |u serve ma cause papers on me Delendlnls but were um suwesslul n was done mrough the concaa :11 an mdMdua\ wm held mmse«aa a rsowwnfauve olme Occuplels. Funnannme, mmugn (we law nnns. some indw\dua\s were menlmed much u may no| be all ms caun rnuna mu m Iwu law firms represented a man ad 475 occuplarslhnusemolds. The (ads m Llm noon rnona (man) are msangunmaa There \s no Ivy mes lhll nna Plzlnufl knew any ov me Cecupnrx arm: two man had alfirmed affidavnx In nhpenhon In M; os sm wmuvfignufimw/cmwoa «nu. sum lunhnrwm .. met! a may he mn.u-y mums flnuamnl VI mum v-ms! [32] The P\avnlxfl rarsaa a pain! H1 repvy to this con|enfim by the occupiers mama 05 was In mu-compliance wlm 0mer89 RUG - we was not rarsea m mew amaamcs Inns (hey were esmupsd Tm Conn agrees man pames shaH be bound by maxr pleadmgs. m mus casa, «ms Oourl Is sausfied Ihal me Plamlnll has taken reasonable steps to ascarvain ma idanuhes av ma Oncupsers nut is averrsd, r: was not possmle Ia raerurry them all an ma mnclure when mu as was med. [:4] An sddi|Iona\ paml In rap\y was um um deponenls ol ma alfidavlls uugm |o have mm in :pphI2|u:n under Rule 5 to ma Ihe proceeding: as dafumianis Navannexoas, ma lwo Occumsrs wha had depend ma amaavrns reprasancaa by Mo «Maren: raw firms and lsgm comers woum bu bound by crra dsclsmn M lms own, as mum an lhe occumevs of ma Flainmfs land [35] A conlendad Inable rssue rarsraa was that the dale onha ownarsnrp M ma land was dlspuled whereby as m 18 11 zunz. they were mlcrmed max me land sun bebnged m FTP. This rs rmmacenan The Plamlifl had rssueu rrmrcaa |o vacate arm aerrvar vacam possession oi me land rn 2022 — ten years later. The Piavmfl was me rsgislsrsd Vandawner and nghkful uwnerm me warm mm had sougm repossessrcn 01 us own prnpeny at me uma of me Issuance of ma nolices mat demand vacant Wssessmn Whalever nzsl cumanhcn could nal shake er dlspossess ma Pnalrrmra enlmemenl war In saw me; Even xv me Dccupiers nahaved that back m 2002, me Iarru belonged |o P19‘ :1 am nol mange me (am that Ihey ma nu! me her FTP’: av ma prammra mnsnru and/nv menu: to ramzm onI|.WhanU1a Plainhfl can wnrmm a duubl shew man u is me regianarau Iinduwnar cl Ihe land‘ the Occumars who am on ma um wimoul me In am wnuvfignufiawcmwoa «mm. s.r.r nmhnrwm .. U... a my r... mm-r am. flnuamnl VI mum war

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-14-51-10/2020

PERAYU HORIZON HILLS RESORT BERHAD RESPONDEN KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA

REVENUE LAW – Income tax – Capital allowances – Meaning of “plant” – Expenditure incurred in recreational club and golf course – Test to be applied – Whether club house and golf course with all its integral parts “premises’ in which business carried on or “plant” with which business is carried on – Income Tax Act 1967, section 42, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3

10/01/2024

YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ae1ad25a-2d45-4eb7-80e5-bf850963bf93&Inline=true

10/01/2024 12:02:52 WA-14-51-10/2020 Kand. 49 S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N WtIarkUtt06A5bFCWO/kw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—14—51—1D/2020 Kand. 49 1b/01/2n2L 12:02-52 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA D1 KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERV WILAYAH FERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR‘ MALAVSIA (BAHAG!/AN KuAsA—KUASA KHAS) RAVUAN NO wA—M,51.1o/2020 Amara Honzun mus Resnrl Bemad Perayu Dan Ketua Perlgalah Hasxl Da\am Negen Responden (Dalam Ferkara Fersurumaya Khas Cukaw Pendapavan Rayuan No PKCP(R) 31/2012 Amara Horizon HVIIS Resort Eerhad Perayu Dan Kama Fengarah Hasll Dalam Negen . Responder!) m wuuxulmnuhrcvvanuw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] ‘nus Vs en eppeex by Hanzon Hills Resort Eerhad, me eppeuam. agamsl the demdmg me: made by the Spemal Commissioners or Income Tax1“SC|T“), m lavuuv av lhe Durecmr General :1! mlena Revenue roam“) The son had msnueeed an appeal by me appeHan\ and upheld me 'deemed“ essessmem by the DGIR lor the Year of Assessment zuw under me Incnme Tax ALI 1967 (“|rA“y. u was me apgeuenrs case max a wee quennea lor cspnzfl euowanoe on me expemmure mcunea on saniln meme me: are plant expenmme set oul he\ow under Schedme 3 althe lTA(“lhe mspuled rlems“) The SCITd|sagreed and hence this appeal [2] The mspmeu meme which ls me sumac: mallet 01 we appeal ale’ la) gun course (much mdudes me aremege eysxem. grass and lurflng, land oosl. maintenance workshop, buggy chavgmg sneuon, golf bag slauon. caumes 512mm and alher mmdenul costs) m wuuxulmnuhrouumw «we. sew ...m.mm .. H... e may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! sausfied the apparatus last“ as me slrucluve was In generate meme rllhar than being premtaes [15] The ASSUG tn Ream Pomsra Esmad was whether the exaenaume on lurflng and grass on ttte gout course was 'p\anl“. There the pnmary fact was met Incame ol the company came hum hoence lees, subscnphan fees‘ am other dub nperattone tram persons who came tn enjoy the Vacilnies the company pmvmen The Court ofAppea|I1e1d applying the ‘apparams test" that: [171 Accepting lhe evmenee olResot1 Poresla Bhd on setectton otturt em: grasses and tttetrtencttanane, does not alter the «act that me lunchonahly aflorded by me dtffsrsnlgrassesare garland parcel nflhe quality ohhe gout course men. A gun course ts the sum (oval M 2111 «ts pans and oomnnnenls. To put tt another way. me ouurse and tts layout, with me ttm and the grasses planled thereon are met mekestne course a course «or game be Dlayed lhevean, thererore a gory course we argument that turf grasses is dislmcl mm the my course, overlooks lhe lacls a wurse IS a get: course 11 m wumumnlmhroumhw «me am ...m.mm e. H... e my t... mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI -r\uNa Wm! only when the grasses planted lherean aHows game be played on u The grasses chosen are lhereiove an mseparame pan and parse! 0! me gen course, and therefore w the gun course rs premises ma busmess a! Rasun Porsxa ans ws earned on lrom, me um and grasses are panand parse! 01 such prermses. us] Yhe quesnon men remains whemer a gal! cams VaHs wmmn ma meamng o1 “want” and qualifies as quahiying exuendmure [20] The germane quesnon rs whether the Specie! Commissioners -n makmg their finding whether expenditure on mrfing and grass on a gen course 15 quamymg expenmms had erred m Ihenr appucauon of me pnnclmes set uul m rewevam case-law. (221 Bearing m mInd1a)Ihe above, my me fact |he golf same was such a faclllly upon wmch players could play gal! and (a) me: n woum do vmence to me language to say the 9010 oourse was a famhly mm which you is played, or in umav wards i| Is no| a p\unl used in 11 m wumulmnamhroumm «mm. sm-1 ...m.mm .. U... a may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! carry-ng out me busmess ov Resorl Porasia am, but Wemxses lram WNM lhe business is carried On, cannot he saw: that me Speua\ Comlmsswoners, on the bass cl case law had enaa m making us findmg u was 3 finding (he Spec\a\ Comrmsamners wars wen enullad to make {ca} Thus, ummaxexy, each case must be rosmvsd by spphcauon onhe principles soacezs above and by mnsuaenng cara7uHy me name otme parlicmar trade bemg earned on and ma mane" ul ma axpenmnure In the prumcllon oi me trade nu nndmgs nufl decision at ma son (17; 1 nrlw relum nu ma case stated The primary Ming 0! (act made by me scw was mat me appauam was carrying on me busmess n! a raaaauenm Club and gofl course The moume of the appellant was den»/ed «mm membersmp lees and subscnpmn lees lmm as members and Income «mm umer operations at me club. It was the findmg at the sen Ihal me u m wumumnamnroumm «mm. sm.‘ nmhnrwm .. U... a mm s. mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! disputed mama apan «mm ma gou coma were haused III me club pmusas wmle In: you course was name ma golfcmb premises [IS] ms means that me swlmmmq pools, gymnasmm. tennis courts, came |enms ruom.chI\d1en pvaymg area, mangmg rooms, (awe! slanons, lmlels, munipuvpcsa rooms Includmg ballroom and readmg mom‘ lood A beverage oulms, heallh centre and shops are all housed nu ma aux: pranuasa. While me gov! couvss which mcludes drainage syslem, glass and mrfing, wam cast‘ mamnananoa workshup, buggy chargmq s1a(Ion‘ gun bag and cadmes sxauon are on ma gen ouurse [II] The SCIT had referred IO and apphed the “apparatus I931“ propounded by Lmdley J In the Yamoulh case which test was refined by Lord Lawry m Cammrssronars al Inland Revenue V Scomsh 5 Nswcsslls Brawanes Ltd The present sla\e ullhe law, aha: ravemng m mse-law‘ m pamcular, Lord Luwry‘s exposition 0' the law on the Subjem was stated by Fox LJ In Vlflmpy Inlamatronal Ltd v Wsfland (Inspector 0! Taxes) [1939] BTC 55 as «snows u m wuamulmnamhroumm «mm. am nmhnrwm .. U... a may he mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! In me hght afme auIhoril1es,(he posmon appears in me In be nus Them rs a wen established msurrcxren, m general Ierms, between (he premrsss m which the business rs named an and me plan! with wh/ch ma Dusmas: is carved on We premises are no: plan! In i|s srmpxesr vomr ma| rs musnecea by Lord Lowry‘s examme of me creanon of atmosphere in a hate! by beauuful bmldlngs and gardens an me one hand ems me cmna, glass and other rameware on me other. The water Is pwam: the former are net [20] The above drsuncuon was quamred by Lord Lowry m me !oHm-mg warns “Something wmcn becomes pan 0! the premrses instead 0! merely embewsmng them Is um p\an( exeepr m |he rare case where we premises are merrrsexues plan!" The Vatler parl <11 muse observahnns Is a remmder mar rr rs nor sumcreru to say mar somelhing Is pan av reax propany It can shll be as \he Barclay curve and Esach Station Caravans cases shuw. m wumumnamhroumm “Nana s.r.r nmhnrwm r. U... w my r... mm-r mum: dnuamnl VI mum war [an The son, nu ma application of me “ipparaluf (est eoncluaea mu me map-nae nems. apanlmrn me golhmurse. are not bemg “pIanLs‘ as meyare necessary laculmes man make up a recrealmnal dub These disputed items are prenuses‘ whether (akmg ms lorm al a mmmng space nr land 51 peox, m wmen Ihe business ofvecreauanax cum Is earned an and nntsameflung mm wmch ma busmess Is earned an (221 The son yexymg on Reson Pomsla Bsmad, reasoned that a gun course is the sum max Mall its pans and mmpanenls This would Include me dramnge syslem. grass and wrong, land cost, mamtenanee workshop, buggy chargmg slamn‘ gall bag and caemes sxauon All «his wswhat makes the vrermses a course for golf «e be played thereon and lherelnre a goW course Thus‘ «along mm acoounl me manner Much mnome is generated, lhal lhe gun course wsa lacmly upon which players mum p4ay gm! and H13! 11 wou\d do violence lo the Vanguage In say me go}! course was a facmiy mm which gun us played — me reasons that made the gov course m Rssod Porsma Esrhad premises and not 'p|anl' wun which the busmess ws earned an m wumulmnamnroumm «mm. sm-1 ...m.mm .. H... a may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! [23] The scn also found aupaerr larlhe mrremsrerr reached based on ma aecrsrarr on Show (lmpeerer of mm) v ungtiala Park (1991) Ltd [2004] $70 305, In Lmgi\e\d Park (1991) Lu: (he issue was whether an AV waamar Track |'AWT") mslaHed at a race eeurse was “Dlanr The Court or Appeal sad that i| was necessary to Idennfy me nerrr in quesucn, eonsraer ms use m we husmess and then |o ask wrremar Mummcned as plant or premises (I/1/Impy rrrremanorral Lld v Wsriam1[1959] arc 55 app/red), It was new that on the apencaciarr or the premises «at was (ha! me Awmrreuarred as premlsesan or m wmcrr me rrada was earned on. The purpose, use, aarrsrrucrran and name amre AWT were such that me AWT funcrroned as prerrrrses for horse raerrrg, as drd me grass race course nmmng parallel wmr it. u woum be rnaocuram Io sesame any ad mam as me appararus wllh mum the trade at argamsmg and pmmotmg horse racing was camud an Thus, we sen’ reached the concmslon manna gen eourse Vs nol an appavalus re “pIant“ wrm wmch me busmess rs camed on 17 rw wum<u|mnunFC'Nu1aw “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm r. U... a my r... mm-r mum: dnuamnl VI mum war Pvlnclnln gnvnrninu nppallatl intervention 1241 Wu consnsenng ms appeal‘ I kept m mm me estabhshed princimes propaunded in Chua Lin Kong v Dlrnclor-Gvnnul of Inland Rovumn [1932] 1 MLJ 235; um; v nmemmsanmu M Inland Revenue [1974] 2 MLJ 33 and Mamor Sdn Bhd V Dirlctor-G-nu M Inland Ruvunuo [1931] 1 MLJ 117 that governs me mncxien 11! me High ccun when delevmlnmg an appeal from me scn The prlncwples are as follows [25] The High Caun Is concerned wun me vans slated m me case slated as m is me poms of Vaw upon those [ads that me Hugh com us asked to decide The findmgs or pnmiry (acts by the sow are unassauame Sn loo are mverences av pura (ac! xv drawn from pnmary facts admmed or proved The High cum :5 however permmed Io carrecl any assumpuon made is to me lega\ eflect or consequences av primary «ans :6 u can be shown manna sew proceeded uuon some mneous assumptmn as to me Mevant Lew lnlerfevanue \s also permitted nr them 15 no evidence to psmy ma nnmng made or where me sow have applied erroneous Iesls in amvmg at then eanemsicms 0! have m wuuxulmnuhrouumw “Nana saw lunhnrwm be H... e may n. nrW\ruU|y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max drawn a wmng mlerenue on me facts or have mwsdilemed mamsewac lfl law. [26] The quesuan (or me Hwgh Conn .s whevlhen gwen me vans as snaxec, me scrr wave juslflied m law .n reacmng ma conclusions lhey dud ream. am me rngn Com is not enmlefl lo wmerfere WM’! the daemon at the SCIT even i7 me Hwgh Court would no! have come in me same concmswon, on the same material Nenhev would we H-gn Cuun subs1Hule «s own preferred Inlerence if ma pnmary (acts (aund by me sour are capable of two anernanve werences [27] The Vasl cnaga \s In Donsvdev me graunds cc appeal nu appananrs contenfions [18] In the Apneuant s Wnnen Subrmssnons n was contended mat me sen nnsappnea me prescribed \est in dwsaflow the camel expendnure on my c-sumac name H was argued lha| the son Wflsapplled Ihelesflormmaled m Yarmoum ana ' non gwe due mnsmeratnon (0 me panicmar mdushy concerned as weH as the specmc cwcumslances of me Indvvlduzfl aaxpnyers busmass .a m wumumnamnroumm «mm. s.nn lunhnrwm s. met! a mm s. nflmnnflly mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! The feflowmg passage in the case stalsd was reproduced wuh regard m the rmsapplncalnn cl the lest Per-ayu mangmnankan dengan rnenggunakan “Funntronalfly mar, ‘Disputed plants‘ aaauan MI flan Perayu dalam pengn-nahan mereka le\ah memjuk kepada kepumsan dalam kes Trwfland dan Inna- Quest. Kamn berpanflangan Ierdapal pubezaan «akva yang keiara antara dua kes Iersebul dangan kes Perayu sakarang Im Ksuuauua kes Iarsabm Ildak melthaxkan permaglan yang Lama dslsm Rayuan sekarang mu. Dalam xeauama ks |ersebut Iempat melerak kevela dan Menara yang dlbma bukamah satu kemudanan yang perm dxsedlakan uleh Fembayar Cukau |etapi merupakan apparatus flan berfungsx ssbagax am Imluk meruana pendapalan Perayu (Paragraph xv at page 113 Case Slated] 129] The appaHanl mnhar argued max ma disputed Hams are “p\anl' based on the decusions nl Tmprland Sdn Bhd. Barclay Cur/e 5 Co Ltd and Beach Siavran Caravans zn m wumumumnrcwmaw «ma s.nn nmhnrwm .. met! a my n. nflmnuuly mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm‘ (b) swvnmmg pool and kid‘: fun goon (c) gymnasium Id! two lenms courts Is) a tame (enms room 11; children playmg area 19! cnangmg moms qm «awe: stamens and man. (i) mumpurpose room wmcn mcmdes a mulhpurpose nan and ballroom (i) food A bevmge ou1ra|s(|na sewers terrace, me F>0l:\srde Cale‘ me cmnese resvauram and me 9e\fer‘s halfway hm cave) (k) a raadnng room up a hesnh centre (In) a pro shop and a spans shop [3] The central wssue m ms apnea! Is whelner me sow erred m msallcwmg the capilal expenditure mcwred on the dspuled mums by lhaAppI||an| underschedule 3 Mme ITA On 23~ June 2023. I dismissed the appeal and alfirmsd me decision oi me sour My reasons are as fouuws m wumumnamhroumm «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! wmmm appullm Inmhrunco wavumnd? [30] It 15 my nnmng that me SCIT applied me correct law and am not misapoly me “apparaIus’ wf wmch the ‘premises’ test \s a pan of II was a daemon me saw was enmled in make on the pnmary tau: and apphcalion onne Vaw. 1 dm no! and any error at law mac warrsmea apnenate mlerleranca an me eslabhshed pnncxplss staxsd above. my N30 as Shawn above. it \s only In rare cases that a nuns-ng or sltumure ws ‘prem\szs‘ as well as ‘p\an|‘. Tmprland Sun and, Barclay cune L Co Ltd and Beach seam». Caravans Ltd were such rare cases Thus. me cases were unnerprux The facts m Troprland Sdn Bhd were such mm the car park uunamg wtsall was the “plan|“ w\|h which me business was earned an The apphcahon at me |esI resuuad In Ihal ouloome. The car park was no! a merely a ounamg m wmcn lhe business ws named an by as mnsuucnon or smlsbmly but yomalhmg wwlh Much me business was earned on. n m wumumnamhroumm «mu. sum lunhnrwm .. med u may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! [:2] Lwkewwse, in Ba/c/ay Cufle a Go up me dry new structure lulfillad Ihe vuncuon 01 man! m me man operanan, Every pan ollhe my dock plays an essermal pan m gemng Verge vessels mm posmon where work on lhe omsma of me mm can begin and mm n .s wrong to vagard erlher me concre|a or any other pan 0! the dock as a mere ssmng or pan ollhe premises in which this nperallan takes Maw The wnme duck was “p\an(' with men ms busmess of me taxpayer was perlarmed [33] Svmnlarly, in Beach Slatran Caravans Ltd Ihe vaxpayer company pperaxea a caravan sue As an added amamon a swxmrrnng ppm and a paddling pool was conslrucied a| the sue The embellishment was In auraci customers to me carawn sue. The pools were apparatus used by the laxpayer company and therefore ‘plant“ 70! carrymg on in busmess m wunmulmumprcwmm «mm. smuw ...m.mm be p... a may he mm-y mum: dnuamnl VI mum vmm Canclullan [34] Since there was no error committed by me SCAT that warrants appellala rnrerverence, me appeal rs dlsmwssed wan costs ~/2. Amaneel Sm n senn smgn J age Hrgh court Kua\a Lumpur Dated 19"‘ Deoember 202: Conn“! ofthn gun in; S.Sa1avana Kumarr vap wen Huv anu Nur Hanma Mohd Azham Messrs Rush Dahlan Salavana Partnership Counnl of mu Rlggnggnj Rmzuan Omman, senror Revenue couneex Anur syanq bin Abdul Kanm. Revenue Counsel Revenue Ancmeyr Vnland Revenue Board 1; m wumrulmnuhrcvvulnw «me smm ...m.mm .. med u may r... nnmnmy -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum we 1) 2| 4) 5| 7) 8) 9) ID) 11) Kelua Pengarah Hasi] Dalam Negen v Truniland sari and [2013] MSTC 304154 ]n]and Revenue Oommissiuners v aaruay cone 8: co Ltd [1969] 1 All ER 732 Cooke (msoecior oi Taxes) v Beach siauon Caravans L|d [[974] 3 Au ER 159 Keiua Pengarah Has] Daiam Negen v Reson Poresia Eerhad [2015] Msrc so-ow Wlmpy Inlemanonal L\d vwariarid (Inspector oi Taxes) [1959] 57c 58 J Lyons A Company Lmllled v A((omsy»Gensra| [1944] cn 2:31], Hiniorr v Maden 5 [men]: [1959] 3 All ER 355 Shove nnsoecior a1Taxes) v Llnafield Pam 199] no [2uu4] STC ans [maria Revenue Commissioners v soomsn and Newcasiie suwenes no [1952] src 296 senovism (HM Inspeclur 0! taxes) V R A H Han [1975] src 353 commissioners oi Iniana Revenue v waiiaki ]mernaiioneI Lld [1990] 3 NZLR 21. :4 IN wumuimnamhroumm “None Smn] luvihnrwm .. med e may r... nflmnnflly MVMI mm. VI muna Wm] 12) Chua Lip Kong v DIrec1or»GeneraIa1\n\and Revenue (195211 MLJ 235. 13) UHG v Dvec(a1»Generala1ln\and Revenue [1974] 2 ML! 33 14) Mamor Sdn Shd v Dwreclor-General :4 mlana Revenue [1931] 1 MLJ117 zs m wuuxulmnuhrcvvanuw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! ANALYSIS AND DECISION [4] The appauanc IS In the busmess of uperaling a gov and recreaIIcna\ club. The issue belore lhs SCIT was whether Ins dIspu|ed warns quamy for want expenanurs under Schsdme 3 o! me ITA The appeflanl contended manappeuace Imervarence was warramed as me sen had nusavnhad Ina lost slated In Kolul Pulgarall Hull Dnllm Nogm v Yvopllnnfl sun Bhd [2013] MTSC an-054 (paragmph 13 of In: Appellanfs wnnen summssvnn In Rapwy) II was argued that lhe “lunclrcna\ lest“ adaplad Ill Tmpfland Sdn Bhd IS IN: present Iaw and bmdlng on me scn as well as «ms Oourl swung on appeax, II was lurlher argued |ha\ W Ins |esI was avplned the daemon anna sow womd be dmerenl and the GVSDLIIEEI Items HEM (B be ‘DIanIs" The cases of Inland Ruvnnue Cammlslianers v Barclay Curl: a. Co Ltd [1969] 1 AH ER 732 and Cook: (lnspnclor of Tun) v amn Station Cnravaus Lld [1974] 3 AM ER 159 we clled In suppon [51 The new wntended lhal Ina SC\T‘s season was correct VI Ihal, Ihe dlspuled nems do not quamy (or capnal allowances. DGIR In the mam relned on (he test and demsvons In Km: Pungmn Hun mum Nlfilfl v Rum Paula Bnrhld I m wuuxulmnunrowalnw «mm. Sum! ...n.mn .. I... w my me DVWMIWY mm: dnuumnl Vfl .rIuNa Wm! [2015] MSTC some and Wlmrly lnurrullonal ua v Wurlund (xnmcnu of Tlxu) peas} are 53 anmougn pmwumg a summary a! other tests used m mes such as’ (x) the “seflmg Ch 251), (M1719'(UfICl|Ufl5‘\|YlESf(Hl71lOfI v Maden a. Inland [1959] 3 AH ER 356); and (m) me “busmess use“ and ‘premises test“ (Show (lnsraulor of runs) v Llnnnuld Park 1991 Ltd [2no41 svc 305, [51 I am at me VIEW mac u would nut help m guing through an anaflysns 0! all these cases our u is dear lrom me use: mm (mm the umnea Kmgdam and Malaysva mare ws no universal (as! am: each case is dependent on us own pecuhar (rad: and me nature at the expendnure hi the pmmcmcn of me vaxpayars busmess This was Domled out by me Court 01 Augean m Reson Poresfa Berhad by referring in ma following observalmn a! Lord Wilberforce m Inlznd Rovlmn Commlsslnnnrs V secular. and Mlwusllo Bnworiua Lid [1982] 570 296: There \s no universal lurmula Much can saw: Ihese puzzles. In me end each case must be resolved. m my opmvon‘ by consmanng cammuy me naluve o! lhe s m wumxulmnuhrcvvamw «mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! pan-cular trade bemg named on‘ and ma relahon of ma axpenallure la llla promollon ol H13 Irade. m In deillng wllh |hls appeal, I remlnded mysalr of ma luncllorl or lms calm allllng an appeal on a case slated lay me SCKT ll ls clear lllal me delerrrllrlallon clllle lssue ofwhelflev me alspulea llsms are 'nlanla' mallar ls commmad by "1! ITA lo lna SClT The Drooeedlng pelora lllls Com la also nel a reheanng am, ln llla clmumslances, ll ls my mncllpn lp sea haw llla sow pmoeeded wi|h me lssue, direcled themselves on \he law and amved al mall declslfln All llus would be lound ln ma case slated. Thu law on uplul allownma and gonunl prlnnlplls la] Before‘ I proceed to the case slaled, I| IS perllnenl lp look a| me law Lha| gave nse to me ulspule wmcrl lne SClT llau lo resnlve. seam 42 of ma lm pmvldes ma: capllal allawanoes ala allowed as a deducliorl in compuhng chargaablo lrluuma and Inns the tax liability pl a company. Such capllal allowance ls permllled ll ll falls wllmn ma aaopa pl quallficatxm expendllure under paragraph 1 pl Schadule 3 pl the lu whlch ls eilher s m wl1m<ulmuml2FC'Nu1luw “Nair Smnl navlhnrwlll .. UIQG a may he nflnlnnllly mm. m.l.n. VI nFluNfl vtmxl “qualifying pram expendxlure“ or “quallfyvng purmrng expendwlura‘. Both mesa expendilures are sumecl la the other pmvlsuons Mme said schedule. m The Instant case concerns anly -quamyrng plinl expendnure“ wmcn rs governed by paragraph 211) wrncn read- sumac: m sub-paragraph (2) and paragrapn 57‘ quahfymg man! expenauure Is caprvar expenanure rncurred on me provrsron or rnaenrnery er prann used (or me purposes of business, incmdmg [10] Thus me burden on me taxpayer daiming sucn aHow:noe rs In Show that \he expendnure rs cipvlal axpananura mcurred on pmcnremem ol ‘machmery or man!’ used Ior me purposes or husmess, The rssue In nne msbant case rs whelher the dispuled narns are "plant" wnnrn ms rneamng 01 scnedme :5 [II] The reason why there VS no umvarsal lest VS due la {he lacl that the word “p|an|' Is wncapalfle cl defimlxon lor the purpases ol the Schedule 3 [see the observauon by Lord wrnpenoree (yaragranh [6] above] In lms regard ma aeesrons or me coun of Appea\ rn Tram‘/and son Sim [2013] MTSC 304154 r rn wuuxulmumprcwmnw “Npne s.n.r lunhnrwm r. med a my r... pflmnuflly mum: dnuamnl VI mum war and Resort Porasia Bsmad [2015] MSTC so-oao (wnieri was decided 9 month! later) are lnslmrzliva The lest propounded by Llndley J in yemioum V FIaIice[1587] can 647 was adopted and applied in both lrie eases ‘nie lesl wnic known as lhe ‘appavams lesr was descrlbed in me «allowing words Them is no definition of pianl in me Acl; bul, in as oruinary sense, ll inauaes wtla|ever apparalus is used bya pusinessrnan «or carrying on his business, — nor nis stock in trade, mix all goods Ind chattels. me or moveable, wnicn ne keeps lnr pernienenl employmeril Ill his business. [12] in TN/.7/land sari lanullre claim of Appeal observed lnei wnel passes as a “plan|" in verrnoum was eciried in me wiaesl possible sense and mm a riesl eleensiaerelions must balaken In|O oonsllieralion in making such aslerrninelion and adnpled lhe svaleinenl by Lord Lawry in Cammissvbners uilnland Revenue v scpmsh 5 Newcastle Breweries Ltd’ The problem which the Durrlmlsslorlers were called upon in serve was one coneernea wilri I “service r~ mmummsrmmm “Nair Smll luvlhnrwm .. UIQG e my i... nrwlrinllly MIMI mm. VI nFluNfl Wm! indus1ry' I Imnk urns fazlar rs wrnponanh because one quesuon of what rs properly to be regarded as ‘p|anI“ can only be answered in me context ml the pamcular imiuslry cancsmed and possumy. vn light also e! me pamcular murrrsrarrcea of ma mdrvidusl taxpayers awn areas \ mmk that much drmcuny Is caused by seekmg to wane ltmnlanve vnlsrpretauans on me srmple ward “planl I do not |hmk max the dassxc deflmmn pmpounded In Yarmoulh V France suggests that m s a word wlvch rs omer man of comprehensive meamng — Vvhalever spparams rs used by a nusmess man far carrymg on ms business’ — whatever the business may be [131 mus, a hohshc appmaoh rs needed in every case by Ioakmg at the laxnayefs business as 3 whole set 07 operahons mrecmd mwams pmducmg income. It was by {ms appwach Ina! that Varge and permanent stnxnures were held in be “planf rather man “a sallmg“ or ’a was: or busmass" as held In lnllnd Rnvanuu carrurnssxorms v Barclay cum 5 co Lm [+9591 1 AH ER 732: Schnflnld (NM Inspector anaxas) v R a H Hall Lld r~ wuamulmnnshroumm «mm. a.r.r lunhnrwm .. U... a may r... mm-y -mm: dnuamnl vn aF\uNfl war [1975] STE 353 and Camminianorl of Inland Rlvunuu v Wnlukl lnmnallonal ma {mm} 3 NILR 27 ml The approach was fipplled m Troprleno Sdn Ehd where lna dlspllled “plan|“ was a mulll-slorey car park. There me pnmary lacl was mal me respondent was a car park operator and lnal ns car park buslnass was ln lrne wrln me lerms ol a lease agreement wlln Ihe Perlang Development corporalion. The car park was lo: me users and aocuplers Ma bullding oernplex based on me sale lease agreement In order lo carry on lrns buslness, me resporldenlwas requlrad by me lease egreernenl to construct the mullrslaley car park Once constructed. me mum-storey car park was to be used la servlce me users and occuplers or a bulldlng The mull:-storey car park, smell. a ounalng IS an ssenlial componenl el lne respondent‘: buslness wllhoulwhlch lne respondent cuuld nol have generalaa Ms revenue The responaenrs lnonme was generaleu by provldlrlg bays lo! we users and occuplers to park lhelr venrcles, ll was nela that wllhoutllla mu||i—sI0rey car park, lne responuenl could nel have generaleo any Income Slnce the lease agreemanl reslncls me use lo which we respondent may put me lano Tne lmMl—slnvey car park on ma prlmary lads and being a servlce lnduslry m rw wuuxulmnnslzrcluulnw «we. Smnl luvlhnrwm be met! a my r... nflmnullly mum: m.n.n VI mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12BC-7-12/2021

PERAYU HERCULES ENGINEERING (SEA) SDN BHD RESPONDEN NAIM ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she found that the Appellant failed to comply with the contractual provisions for variationsWhether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she held that the Appellant failed to prove that it had carried out and completed the Additional Works and thereby dismissed the Appellant’s claim for the sameWhether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she found that the Appellant failed to prove the alleged oral instruction to carry out the Additional Works by not calling Zulfikri as a witnessWhether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she found that the issue of waiver was not pleaded by the AppellantWhether the SCJ had failed to direct herself to the legal principle that evidence on material facts not pleaded must be disregarded and rejectedWhether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she decided that quantum meruit is not applicable

10/01/2024

YA Dato' Hajah Aliza binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bf13a526-fbaa-4abd-90f4-a7d97c1f58be&Inline=true

GoJ 12BC-7-12-2021 Hercules Engineering (SEA) v Naim Engineering (final).pdf 1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL NO.: WA-12BC-7-12/2021 BETWEEN HERCULES ENGINEERING (SEA) SDN BHD (Company No.: 324486-T) ... APPELLANT AND NAIM ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. (Company No.: 420203-W) ... RESPONDENT IN THE SESSIONS COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO.: WA-B52C-28-08/2020 BETWEEN HERCULES ENGINEERING (SEA) SDN BHD (Company No.: 324486-T) ... PLAINTIFF AND NAIM ENGINEERING SDN BHD (Company No.: 420203-W) ... DEFENDANT 10/01/2024 09:59:05 WA-12BC-7-12/2021 Kand. 41 S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] This was an appeal by the Appellant, the sub-contractor who was appointed by the Respondent for the sub-package works for the Supply, Deliver, Testing & Installation of Laminated Elastomeric Bearing Pads ( Original Works Package S4 Construction and Completion of Elevated Stations and Other Associated Works at Section 16, Pusat Bandar Damansara and Semantan which is part of the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit Project for the Sungai Buloh Kajang Line ( Project ), against part of the decision of the learned SCJ where she (a) allowed the balance amount for Original Works in the sum of RM23,137.70 with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of registration of the case i.e. 5.8.2020 until the date of settlement; and (b) additional works to cast additional thickness of high strength shrink levelling grout Additional Works in the sum of RM293,182.52. [2] After perusing RoA giving due consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties as well as the clarifications by the learned counsels, Ms. KM Cheah for the Appellant and Mr. KS Ong for the Respondent, I had allowed the S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 appeal. Accordingly, judgment was entered against the Respondent for (a) the sum of RM23,138.10 being the balance amount for the Original Works; (b) the sum of RM293,182.52 for the Additional Works; (c) interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the sums as stated in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above amounting to RM316,320.62 from 3.12.2014 until full settlement; and (d) costs of RM15,000.00 here and below to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant, subject to allocatur. [3] The Respondent is dissatisfied with part of my decision in allowing the the sum of RM293,182.52 for the Additional Works with interest thereon and the order as to costs. Hence, the main issue to be addressed in this judgment is whether the SCJ was plainly wrong in dismissing Additional Works. BACKGROUND FACTS [4] The Appellant is in the business of engineering contractor, contracting and constructing structural works. Its registered address is at F-2-43, Block F, Taipan Damansara 2, Jalan PJU 1A/3, Ara Damansara, S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor whilst the business address is at 12A, Jalan SB Jaya 1, Taman Industri SB Jaya, 47000 Sungai Buloh, Selangor. [5] The Respondent carries out business as a civil and earthwork contractor and the hiring of machinery. Its registered address is at 9th Floor, Wisma Naim, 2½ miles, Rock Road, 93200 Kuching, Sarawak and business address is at No. A-39-1, Level 39, Menara UOA Bangsar, No. 5, Jalan Bangsar Utama 1, 59000 Kuala Lumpur. [6] By a contract dated 18.5.2021 made between Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Sdn Bhd, MMC Gamuda KVMRT (PDP) Sdn Bhd PDP and Sunway execute and complete Package V4: Construction And Completion Of Viaduct Guideway And Other Associated Works From Section 17 To Semantan Portal Main Contract Works . [7] Form Of Sub-Contract For Nominated Sub-Contractor NSC Form of Sub-Contract whereby, in consideration of the payments to be made by Sunway to the Respondent, the latter covenants to execute and complete the Sub-Contract Works or the Project in conformity with the provisions of the Sub-Contract. [8] By the Letter of Acceptance dated ( LoA ) dated 13.1.2014, the Respondent appointed the Appellant as the sub-contractor for the Original Works for the contract sum of RM260,370.00. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [9] The sub-contract period is 12 months with the commencement date on 2.1.2024 and completion date and handing over on or before 1.1.2015. [10] Based on the LoA, Works viz. (a) the supply and delivery of, amongst others, Laminated Elastomeric Bearings Pads at the dimension of 356mm x 406mm x 70mm ( Bearing Pads ) including all necessary steel plates, dowels and approved high strength non-shrinkage cement grout ( NSC Grout ); (b) carrying out testing of the Bearing Pads with issuance of manufacturer compliance certificate; and (c) installation of Bearing Pads including casting a layer of NSC Grout of 406mm (W) x 456mm (L) x 25mm (H) to hold and fix the Bearing Pads onto the bearing plinth. [11] Apart from the Original Works, the Appellant alleged that the Respondent had instructed the Appellant to carry out the Additional Works. [12] According to the Appellant, it had carried out and completed the Original Works and Additional Works from January 2014 till November 2014 and had issued six progress claims for payment of these Works. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [13] The Project was completed in 2016 and the Respondent had released the retention sum to the Appellant. However, the Respondent allegedly only made part payments to the Appellant for works which were completed pursuant to the LoA. [14] In the Amended Statem SoC the sum of RM322,894.68 with interest and costs. The detailed computation as set out in paragraph 13 of the SoC is re-produced below: [15] In paragraph 7A of the Amended SoC, the Appellant pleaded that, as the Respondent has benefitted from the Additional Works, the Appellant is entitled to be paid the claimed amount or any other reasonable amount on the basis of quantum meruit. Butir-butir Jumlah Kerja-kerja yang disiapkan RM258,404-00 Tolak: Wang tahanan RM13,018-50 Tambah: Kerja-kerja Tambahan yang disiapkan RM293,182-58 Tolak: Pembayaran separa yang dibuat RM228,691-90 Tambah: Wang tahanan yang dilepaskan RM13,018-50 Jumlah yang perlu dibayar dan terhutang oleh Defendan RM322,894-68 S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [16] The Res Works on the grounds, among others, that there are no written instructions, authorisations or approvals for the purported Additional Works as contractually stipulated and that the Appellant is not entitled to any sums based on quantum meruit. DECISION OF THE SESSIONS COURT [17] After a full trial, the SCJ decided, among others, to dismiss the . analysis and findings in paragraphs 23 - 52 of her Grounds of Judgment GoJ are summarised as follows: (a) the Appellant failed to comply with the variation procedures as set out in Clauses 34 and 35 of the LoA, which require written instruction, authorisation and approval by the authorised person for any variation orders, and thereby was not entitled to claim, and to be paid, for the Additional Works; (b) the Appellant failed to prove that it had obtained oral instruction from Mohd. Zulfikri Bin Ghazali, the Zulfikri , to carry out the Additional Works as the Appellant did not call Zulkifli as a witness at the trial and the presumption under s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56 EA 1950 invoked; S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (c) ntion that the e-mail dated 8.2.2014 from Zulfikri to the Appellant 8.2.2014 E-mail refers to the specifications for the Additional Works is inconsistent with the evidence given by DW1 surveyor for the Project, and DW2 and the contemporaneous documents; moreover the 8.2.2014 E-mail contains a disclaimer; (d) Inspection & Test Plan Forms Installation of Elastomeric Bearings the Original Works and not for the Additional Works; (e) no determination can be made on the issue of waiver i.e. that the Respondent had, by its conduct, waived the strict requirements under the LoA on variation procedures or had admitted the Additional Works and promised to pay for the same, as this was not pleaded by the Appellant; (f) Zulfikri was not authorised to give any variation order or to waive the variation procedures; (g) some of the facts as submitted by the Respondent are contained in the Amended Defence whilst other facts are only description of the details which are immaterial or evidence in support of the issues and do not need to be pleaded. On the other hand, the facts as submitted by the Appellant have to be pleaded; S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (h) the Respondent did not protest or object to the contemporaneous documents at all material times until the dispute arose is baseless; (i) the identity of the third party who is actually responsible to build the plinths at the Pusat Bandar Damansara station is immaterial and does not affect the other evidence which shows that the Appellant did not carry out or complete the Additional Works; (j) the As-Built Drawings are contemporaneous documents and the maker, DW1, is an independent witness who gave evidence on these Drawings. The Appellant failed to elicit evidence from DW1 that these Drawings are false or created for the trial. The As-Built Drawings are given high probative value; and (k) the Appellant is not entitled to claim and to be paid on the basis of quantum meruit as there is an existing contract between the parties to pay an agreed sum. THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL [18] The Amended Memorandum of Appeal listed 14 grounds of appeal in Appellant claimed that the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she made the determinations as stated in subparagraphs 17 (a) to (k) above. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [19] the Appellant asserted that the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she failed to conclude that interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the sums due and owing should be calculated from 3.12.2014, which is 30 days from the date PC No. 6 ), and not from the date of registration of the case, until full and final settlement. THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES [20] Azman bin Mahmood & Anor v SJ Securities Sdn Bhd [2012] 6 MLJ 1 (FC, at paragraphs 24 and 25, p 12), Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 MLJ 441 (FC, at paragraph 60, p 464) and MMC Oil & Gas Engineering Sdn Bhd v Tan Bock Kwee & Sons Sdn Bhd [2016] 2 MLJ 428 (CA, at paragraph 17, p 437) for the well- established legal principles on appellate intervention. [21] These legal principles and the history on is well captured in the judgment which was chosen by the appeal as delivered by Zabariah Yusof FCJ for the apex court in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67. It is settled law that an appellate court will not 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. If, in arriving at the S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 decision, it could not reasonably be explained or justified and the decision of the trial court is one which no reasonable judge could have reached, the decision is susceptible to appellate intervention. The plainly wrong test is not intended to be used by the appellate court as a means to substitute its own decision for that of the trial court on the facts (see pp 81 - 96 of the law report, especially paragraphs 62 - 78). ANALYSIS & FINDINGS OF THE COURT [22] Although in the Written Submission to this Court, the Appellant framed seven main issues in respect of the appeal as to the claim for the Additional Works, some of these issues are inter-related and will be addressed together in the discussion on the contemporaneous documents. 1st Issue: Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she found that the Appellant failed to comply with the contractual provisions for variations 2nd Issue: Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she held that the Appellant failed to prove that it had carried out and completed the Additional Works and thereby dismissed 3rd Issue: Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she found that the Appellant failed to prove the alleged oral S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 instruction to carry out the Additional Works by not calling Zulfikri as a witness 4th Issue: Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she found that the issue of waiver was not pleaded by the Appellant 5th Issue: Whether the SCJ had failed to direct herself to the legal principle that evidence on material facts not pleaded must be disregarded and rejected [23] Clauses 34 and 35 of the LoA VARIATION ORDERS 34. HESB shall comply and execute all variation orders issued in writing by NESB Project Manager and approved by NESB Project Director. 35. All Claims for variation orders and/or associated claims by HESB in connection with the changes in the subject to the approval of the WPC and PDP. HESB shall note that Clause 19 related to Variation in the Form of Subcontract for Nominated Subcontractor between NESB and WPC shall be applicable to this Contract. [24] Clause 19 of the NSC Form of Sub-Contract reads: S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (a) The Nominated Sub-Contractor shall comply with and carry out any variations required or authorized in writing by the Works Package Contractor and approved by the PDP. Save as aforesaid, no variation of the Sub- Contract Works shall be made or allowed by the Nominated Sub-Contractor. (b) g assigned to it as in the Main Contract. . [25] It was the R the Appellant had failed to comply with the above-quoted Clauses as there was no written instruction or approval from the Project Manager and Project Director and the Additional Works were not authorised or approved by PDP and Sunway as the Works Package Contractor. Further, even if Zulfikri had instructed the Appellant to carry out the Additional Works, he was not authorised to give such instruction as he was not the Project Manager or Project Director. [26] With regards to the 8.2.2014 E-mail where Zulfikri wrote Attached herewith the table of R,L top bearing as per requested , the Respondent submitted that it did not state that Zulfikri had instructed the Appellant to carry out the Additional Works. [27] In paragraphs 23 - 26 of the submissions by citing the case authority of Josu Engineering Construction Sdn Bhd v TSR Bina Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 MLJ 411 (CA) to support her finding that the variation procedures as set out in Clauses S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 34 and 35 of the LoA must be given their literal meaning and be strictly complied with, and as the Appellant failed to prove there was such compliance, its claim for the Additional Works cannot be allowed. The SCJ opined that this conclusion is the same even if the Appellant had carried out the Additional Works as alleged. [28] I have perused the Record of Appeal and considered the oral and and the submissions and clarifications before me in my appellate capacity, and in my view, the SCJ erred in law and in fact when she failed to conclude that the absence of written instruction, authorisation or approval by the persons stated in the LoA is not fatal and will not disentitle the Appellant from claiming for the Additional Works. My reasons are elaborated below. [29] In Comfort Management Pte Ltd v OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 979, a similar argument was put forth in that the contract provided for a strict and detailed contractual mechanism for the approval and valuation of variations, and the party claiming for payment for variation works must prove that a written notice for such works had been given and a written approval had been issued to carry out such works. However, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that: 89 We did not accept this submission. We recognise that standard form construction contracts, which may be said to reflect industry practice, generally require variations in the contract to provide for a change in the scope of construction work contemplated to be effected in writing. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 However, it is not invariably the case that the absence of writing, or more generally, the failure to follow the prescribed procedure, will disentitle the party who has performed the variation works from claiming payment for those works. Thus it is said in Chow Kok Fong, Law and Practice of Construction Contracts, vol 1 (Sweet & Maxwell, 4th Ed, 2012) at para 5.25: The effect of contractual provisions such as those cited here is that, except for situations which have been specifically exempted, a written variation order serves as a condition precedent for payment of the variation work. If a contractor ignores the requirement for a written variation order, as a general principle, he cannot be found to complain subsequently if he is not paid for the varied work, nor can he contend that he should be paid a reasonable sum for the work merely on the premise that the employer had the benefit of the variation work. However, in a suitable situation, the employer may be estopped by his conduct from denying liability to pay notwithstanding the non- compliance with the formalities stipulated in the contract. 90 This passage suggests that the absence of documents that demonstrate formal compliance with the contractually prescribed procedure for variation works is not necessarily fatal to a claim for variation works. That S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 gives the impression that such absence does not inexorably translate into a patent error in the payment claim. All it means is that the contractor bears the risk of proving that the variation was ordered by the employer in the absence of a written variation order. This observation finds support in the position in English law on this issue, which is that a term of a contract which states that the contract can only be varied in writing will not prevent there being an oral variation; instead, the effect of such a term is at best to raise a rebuttable presumption that, in the absence of writing, there has been no variation: Sean Wilken QC & Karim Ghaly, The Law of Waiver, Variation, and Estoppel (Oxford University Press, 3rd Ed, 2012) at p 26 fn 131, citing the English Court of decision in I-Way Ltd v World Online Telecom UK Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 413 (see [11] [12] per Sedley LJ and [17] per Schiemann LJ); see also the English Court of decision in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 553 at [34] per Kitchin LJ. . [30] Comfort Management (supra) should be confined to its own facts whereby the decision. In my opinion, this argument rings hollow. An explication of the general principles of law is relevant and applicable irrespective of whether these are made in a civil suit concerning adjudication proceedings and S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [31] In fact, in Law And Practice of Construction Contracts, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018, the learned author Chow Kok Fong illuminated that, a few weeks after the decision in Comfort Management (supra), the United Kingdom Supreme Court in the case of Rock Advertising LTD v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] 2 W.L.R. 1603, which concerns a licence agreement for the use NOM that variations to the licence must be agreed and set out in writing before they take effect, held that the NOM clause should be given its full effect i.e. to permit a variation to the contract only in accordance with the terms of the clause, subject to a party being able to establish an estoppel specifically preventing reliance upon the NOM clause (see paragraph 5.031, pp 303 - 304). [32] In paragraphs 5.032 and 5.037, pp 304 and 306, the learned author further stated that: 5.032 Lord Sumption considered that where a party had acted on an oral variation notwithstanding the existence of a NOM clause, the safeguard against injustice under English law lies in the various doctrines of estoppel. However he added the requirements on which such reliance on an estoppel should be predicated on some unequivocal words or conduct evincing a valid agreement to vary. he scope of estoppel cannot be so broad as to destroy the whole advantage of certainty for which the parties stipulated when they agreed upon terms S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 including the No Oral Modification clause. At the very least, (i) there would have to be some words or conduct unequivocally representing that the variation was valid notwithstanding its informality; and (ii) something more would be required for this purpose than the informal promise itself Recovery without Written Orders Implied Promise to Pay 5.037 In certain circumstances, the courts may be prepared to impute an implied promise on the part of the employer to pay for work which has not been ordered in accordance with the formalities stipulated in the contract conditions. A situation which warrants such an imputation is where the employer has done some act suggesting that he is waiving the condition precedent, and which has the effect of leading the contractor . In Molloy v Liebe (1910), the employer ordered the contractor to execute a certain item of work. The contractor argued that this was extra work. The employer maintained that the work was not an extra and insisted that the contractor carry out the work. The matter was referred to arbitration. In an award which was subsequently upheld in S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 court, the arbitrator ruled that the work was indeed, as the contractor claimed, extra work and that the employer had, by his insistence that work should be done, impliedly promised the contractor that the work would be paid for. It was considered immaterial in the circumstances that the subject work was not ordered in writing in accordance with the procedures stipulated under the terms of the contract. (emphasis added). [33] In Keating on Construction Contracts, 10th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2016 by Stephen Furst & The Hon. Sir Vivian Ramsey the esteemed authors had elucidated at pp 110 - 111 on implied promise on the part of an employer to pay for work which was not instructed in accordance with the formalities stipulated in the contract conditions in these terms: When there is a condition in the contract that extras shall not be paid for unless ordered in writing by the architect and the employer orders work which they know, or are told, will cause extra costs there may be an implied promise by the employer that the work should be paid for as an extra and especially so in cases where any other inference from the facts would be to attribute dishonesty to the employer. Such a promise may be implied where there has been a waiver of the condition. In order to constitute a S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 waiver there must be conduct which leads to other party reasonably to believe that the strict legal rights will not be insisted on. Thus, in principle, a written waiver by the employer would be effective, and even an oral waiver would be sufficient if it were a clear undertaking not to rely on the condition. Where a contractor maintained that certain work was extra work but the employer said that it was not and insisted that work was extra work and that a promise was to be inferred on the part of the employer to pay for it if it should be found to be extra work. Although the work was not ordered in writing as an extra in the manner required by the contract, the court said that it was difficult to see how any other inference could have been drawn without attributing dishonesty to the employer. [emphasis added; the footnote to the last sentence as above quoted refers to the case authorities of Molloy v Liebe (1910) 102 L.T. 616 (High Court of Australia), Update Constructions Pty Ltd v Rozelle Child Care Centre Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 251 (New South Wales Court of Appeal) and Trimis v Mina (2000) T.C.L.R. 346 (New South Wales Court of Appeal)]. [34] In EA Technique (M) Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd and another case [2020] 11 MLJ 353 at p 380, the High Court, in finding that the additional works to be carried out S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 AWO adjudicatable issue within the core and/ or contingent jurisdiction of the adjudicator in the adjudication proceedings, said that: [44] There were many AWO issued for changes or variations during the performance of the contract (which led to the eventual conflict or dispute between the parties). Upon their issuance as instructed by EAT, I however find that EAT did not raise objection to the contents of the AWO at all material times on their issuance that they were not in accordance with the procedure in article 13 of the conditions of contract save only on its qualification on the price and costs stated therein. It must thus be deemed that EAT had waived, acquiesced or accepted that they were issued pursuant to the contract. Accordingly, EAT is also estopped from insisting on strict compliance of article 13 of the conditions of contract. (emphasis added; see too Mahsurimas Sdn Bhd v Ravinder Singh al Shangara Singh & Ors [2019] 11 MLJ 281 at paragraphs 93 - 95, pp 304 and 305 where the High Court allowed the their conduct, waived their right to insist on written instruction for variation). [35] At the court below, the Appellant contended that it has discharged the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the Additional Works were ordered by the Respondent in the absence of a written S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 variation order by the the Project Director, based on contemporaneous documents. I have scrutinised the contemporaneous documents and my analysis is as follows: (a) The 7.6.2013 In this quotation amounting to RM260,370.00, there is a statement that 1) If the actual plinth thickness is more than 25mm, the rate shall be charged proportional based on the volume. Based on Clause 2 of the LoA, this quotation is one of the letters between the parties which shall constitute a binding contract between them. (b) 8.2.2014 E-mail (i) PW1 had explained the facts which led to the issuance of the 8.2.2014 E-mail during re-examination. PW1 testified that on the day in question, the Appellant was supposed to cast the Original Works of 20mm to 25mm plinths in height, but they discovered that there were no upstand plinths (see too, the Notes of Evidence in the Record of Appeal, Vol. 2A, encl. 4, pp 104 - 111 where PW1 explains the drawing he made during the trial which was marked as exhibit P3 (Record of Appeal, Vol. 2D, encl. 7, p 1149) to show the upstand plinth, grout and bearing for the Original Works and Additional Works). S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Zulfikri then requested the Appellant, through PW1, to cast as per requested -mail are said to refer to the Additional Works. (ii) The 8.2.2014 E-mail was also copied to Wan Mohd Izzudin Bin Wan Ibrahim, the R Manager, who did not at any time, inform the Appellant that Zulfikri was not authorised to give any instruction or request for variation order and nor to send the 8.2.2014 E-mail. (iii) One of the grounds of appeal was that the SCJ had erred in law and fact when she drew an adverse inference against the Appellant for not calling Zulfikri as a witness. The Respondent submitted contention that the instruction to carry out the Additional Works were given by Zulfikri via the 8.2.2014 E-mail. However, oral instruction to PW1 to perform the Additional Works and this instruction was then recorded in the 8.2.2014 E-mail where Zulfikri had attached a document setting out the specifications of the Additional Works. PW1 had given evidence that he received the instruction from Zulfikri. Moreover, PW1 was the Operation Manager and actively involved in the Project by being present at the site when the Original Works and the Additional Works S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 were carried out. The 8.2.2014 E-mail was sent to PW1 who understood the context of the same. In v contemporaneous Additional Works, as shall be further elaborated, the evidential burden then shifts to the Respondent to prove that in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant is not required to present Zulfikri as a witness and the SCJ was plainly wrong in her decision in paragraph 29 of the GoJ in drawing an adverse inference against the Appellant under s 114(g) EA1950. There is a final point to be dealt with in relation to the 8.2.2014 E-mail and it is this; the Respondent had submitted that the 8.2.2014 E-mail contains a disclaimer that the contents of the same is not binding on the Respondent unless it was issued by an authorised person. The SCJ was persuaded by this submission. The disclaimer in the 8.2.2014 E-mail appears to be a standard disclaimer for all e-mails sent by the Respondent to any recipient i.e. that the e-mail is confidential and legally privileged and what a person who has received the e-mail in error should do, including the statement that the contents of the e-mail are not binding on the Respondent unless the contents is subsequently confirmed in writing by an S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 authorised person. In my considered view, the SCJ had erred by relying on the disclaimer as a reason to support her findings and conclusion and not giving sufficient weight to the oral and documentary evidence as a whole. (iv) the meaning of the 8.2.2014 E-mail (see paragraphs 30 and 31 in the GoJ) for the reasons as put forth by the Appellant in paragraph 21 of the Written Submission. Basically, DW2 had no personal knowledge of the contents of the 8.2.2014 E-mail as he was not involved in the Project, he was not copied in the 8.2.2014 E-mail and his name does not appear in any of the documents which were produced for the trial. (v) As for the - 34 of the GoJ evidence, the SCJ failed to appreciate that the Respondent, through its witnesses, had attempted to introduce facts and defences which were not pleaded in the Amended Defence. A scrutiny of the Amended Defence clearly shows that the was that there are no written instructions, authorisations and approvals as required under the LoA. However, during the trial, among the new S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 (A) the casting of grout plinths at SBP01, SPB02 and SPB05 Respondent was only responsible for SPB03 and SPB04; (B) the casting of grout plinths was completed by Sunway before the Appellant installed the Bearing Pads. Based on the readings taken on site, DW1 had prepared the As-Bulit Drawings in February and March 2014. Based on the as-built bearings plinths level made by DW1, the plinths for SPB01, SPB02, SPB04 and SPB05 were constructed by other contractors on 2.2.2014 i.e. before the Appellant entered into the project site. Therefore, it is impossible for the Appellant to have carried out the Additional Works in April 2014; (C) there was no inspection or verification of the Additional Works by the Respondent before the Verification of Work Done / Variation Order Work Done Forms were signed by the Respondent; and (D) the Appellant made a false claim for the Additional Works. It is trite that material facts must be pleaded. This is to prevent the opposing party from being taken by surprise by S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 evidence which departs from the pleaded case (see Superintendent of Land and Surveys (4th Div) & Anor v Hamit bin Matusin & Ors [1994] 3 MLJ 185 (PC) and The Carbon Co Sdn Bhd & Anor v Ng Lee Hoon (conducting [2017] 4 MLJ 791 (CA) and the plethora of cases cited therein). The fact that the Appellant was taken by surprise is demonstrated by the objections raised by the counsel at the trial whenever the Respondent attempted to bring in evidence as to facts which were not pleaded (see subparagraph 2(b) of the Appellant letter to the court dated 21.6.2022 (encl. 21) in respond to my questions during the clarification session on the objections made by the counsel as recorded in the Notes of Evidence). In this regard, the SCJ found, among others, that DW1 is an independent witness, the As-Built Drawings are contemporaneous documents and the Appellant failed to elicit evidence from DW1 that these Drawings are false. Hence, the SCJ gave high probative value to the As-Built Drawings and rejected the Appellant submission that the Respondent produced the draft and official As-Built Drawings a mere two weeks before the trial commenced and that this issue was never pleaded by the Respondent in its Amended Defence. The SCJ was plainly wrong in failing to recognise the fundamental rules on pleadings. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 (c) Verification of Work Done / Variation Order Work Done Form and Inspection & Test Plan: Installation Of Elastomeric Bearings Form Said Forms PC No. 6 dated 3.11.2014 The Said Forms show that Zulfikri had signed the same and affixed the company stamp on 8.4.2014 in the column meant for of the Additional Works carried out, namely, casting grout plinths at the thickness of 75mm or 100mm at 130 beams at the Pusat Bandar Damansara Station (SPB 01 UC, SPB 02 DC, SPB 02 UC, SPB 03 UC, SPB 04 DC, SPB 04 UC dan SPB 05 DC). The Respondent contended that Zulfikri was not authorised to verify and approve the Additional Works. In his evidence, DW2 even insinuated that anyone can buy the company stamp. However, he later admitted in cross-examination that no police report was lodged against Zulfikri for using the company stamp without authority. In the submissions before this Court, Mr. KS Ong argued that the SCJ (mainly PW1 and DW1, in the light of the alleged contradictions prepared the Verification of Work Done / Variation Order Work Done Form; see paragraphs 31 - Submissions) should not be interfered with as the SCJ had the S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 benefit of observing the demeanor of the witnesses. Whilst the legal principle that an appellate court should not interfere with the conclusions by the trial court on primary facts due to, among others, the fact that the trial judge was in the evidence (see Ng Hoo Kui, supra, at paragraph 68, pp 93 - 94), however, in this case, the SCJ failed to appreciate the entire evidence which was adduced at the trial. When cross-examined, DW2 agreed that the Said Forms were sent to the Respondent together with PC No. 6 in November 2014. A perusal of PC No. 6 shows that the Appellant had Variation Orders Casting Bearing Up Stand Plinth Appendix A Appendix A contains details such as the location, original dimension, as-built dimension, variation in the dimension, the rates charged and the computation for the total amount claimed for Variation Orders. If indeed the Respondent did not instruct the Appellant to carry out the Additional Works as alleged, it is reasonable to expect that the Respondent would have scope of authority and protested to PC No. 6 and the Said Forms since November 2014. However, the Respondent did not deny that it had instructed the Appellant to carry out the Additional Works and that the Additional Works were carried out by the Appellant. There was no correspondence or communication S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 whatsoever at the mater letter to the Appellant dated 24.4.2019 regarding the Final (2) We not received any official Variation Order Claim from you. Kindly refer to the Term and Conditions of our Letter of Acceptance Clause 34 and 35 of the Variation Orders. in charge of the plinths at the relevant locations and other contractors who had already constructed the plinths at several locations, was on facts, and an attempt by the Respondent to introduce defences, which were not pleaded in the Amended Defence. (d) E-mails dated 5.5.2015, 5.9.2015, 10.9.2015, 14.1.2016 and 16.1.2017 In the e-mail dated 5.5.2015, the Respondent requested for the key plan/ drawing, progress photo, breakdown and measurement sheet of the variation order in softcopy in Excel file and all supporting documents from the Appellant. The Respondent repeated the request vide the e-mail dated 5.9.2015 to the Appellant viz. for the key plan/ drawing, progress photo and all supporting documents prior to processing of the claim. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 There is no document to show that the Appellant had responded to the two abovesaid e-mails. Nevertheless, the Respondent did not pursue the request for the previously mentioned documents and instead on 10.9.2015, the Respondent sent another e-mail Regarding PC no. 6 which is Variation Order, We require you to forward to us the Built up rate breakdown for the grout as well. The Appellant replied by the e-mail dated 14.1.2016 attaching Summary of Delivery Order Delivery Order signed by WPC Cost justification for plinth grouting VO and Should you require further information / queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. send any requests for documents to the Appellant after that date. On 16.1.2017, the Respondent sent an e-mail to the Appellant to discuss the rate (e) Meeting on 27.1.2017 and letter dated 31.1.2017 Following the meeting on 27.1.2017, the Appellant wrote to the Respondent on 31.1.2017 ( 31.1.2017 Letter to record, among others, as follows: It was indeed a great meeting we had last Friday 27.01.2017. We are glad that the issues are now S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 clarified as follow: 1. The additional grouting works are proportionally calculated as variation order under clause 2 (C) 2. The additional thickness were indeed required to match the structural finished level on top of bearings. 3. All additional grouting works were verified and the Inspection Test Plan (ITP) were duly signed by your authorized manager. We therefore would appreciate that you expedite the payment process as this account is long overdue. . The Respondent did not deny the contents of the 31.1.2017 Letter and nor was the same challenged during cross- note in the 31.1.2017 Letter, it would be fair to say that the Appellant held the believe that it would be paid for the Additional Works. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 (f) Letter of Demand dated 28.5.2020 LoD The Appellant had issued the LoD to the Respondent upon being instructed that the Respondent had requested the Appellant to carry out additional grouting works and that these works were completed. The sum of RM322,894.68 was demanded to be paid within seven days. The Respondent did not reply to the LOD. This is fatal to the Respondent because, as a business entity, it would surely be aware of the grave implications by not responding to a legal letter. This failure to respond goes to conduct under s 8 EA 1950. Conduct is a relevant fact for the Court to consider in giving the relevant probative force to the version of one party or the other party (see Halim Saad v. Chan Yok Peng [2021] 1 CLJ 499 (CA) at paragraphs 44 - 47, pp 519 - 521). [36] If the SCJ had properly analysed and appreciated the contents and significance of the contemporaneous documents as outlined above, she would have found that these documents were not promptly and vigorously denied or challenged by the Respondent at all material times, and that the evidence adduced by the Appellant proves that the Respondent had (a) instructed the Appellant to carry out the Additional Works; (b) verified and approved the Additional Works carried out by the Appellant; S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 (c) agreed that the rates for the Additional Works are to be calculated proportionately; and (d) [37] conduct, the Appellant was led to reasonably believe that the strict legal rights will not be insisted on and that it would be paid for the Additional Works. The absence of written instructions, authorisations or approvals by the parties as stipulated in the LoA is not fatal and will not disentitle the Appellant from claiming for the Additional Works because the Appellant had shown that it had carried out the Additional Works as instructed by the Respondent and the Respondent had, by its act, waived the strict requirements under the LoA on variation procedures or had admitted the Additional Works and promised to pay for the same. In the circumstances, the Respondent is estopped from denying its obligation to pay for the Additional Works (see Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 331). [38] The Respondent had contended that the issue of waiver was never pleaded by the Appellant in the SoC and in any event, the Respondent never waived the requirements under Clauses 34 and 35 of the LoA as a waiver can only be given by an authorised person. Zulkifli is not an authorised person. Thus, the 8.2.2014 E-mail and the Verification of Work Done / Variation Order Work Done Forms which were signed by Zulfikri do not amount to a waiver. In paragraph 38 of the GoJ, the SCJ took the view that no determination can be made on the issue of waiver as this was not pleaded by the Appellant. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 [39] waiver Appellant had pleaded all material facts which could support a finding on waiver. In addition, the Respondent was not taken by surprise as the Respondent itself had submitted on the issue of waiver, among others with reference to the case of Allied Marine Transport Ltd v Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao SA; The Leonidas D [1985] 2 All ER 796 that silence does not amount to a waiver, in subparagraph 30(d) of its Reply Submission dated 18.1.2021 in its application which was filed on 26.11.2020 pursuant to Order 14A and O. 33, rr. 2 and 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( RC 2012 Civil Appeal No. WA-12AC-9-02/2021, against the decision of the SCJ in dismissing its application, was dismissed by this Court on 24.5.2021). [40] In the final analysis, I the evidence, the SCJ erred by not imputing an implied promise on the part of the Respondent to pay for the Additional Works, even though the formalities stipulated in the LoA were not fulfilled, as there has been a waiver of the strict requirements under the LoA. 6th Issue: Whether the SCJ had erred in law and/ or in fact when she decided that quantum meruit is not applicable [41] The SCJ , on the authority of Syarikat Binaan Utara Jaya (a firm) v Koperasi Serbaguna Sungai Glugor Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ 546 (CA) that the Appellant is not entitled to claim, and to be paid, on the basis of quantum meruit as S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 there is an existing contract between the parties to pay an agreed sum (see paragraphs 46 - 48 of the GoJ). [42] In this appeal, the Respondent drew support from other judgments by the Court of Appeal, namely, Aneka Melor Sdn Bhd v. Seri Sabco (M) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2016] 2 CLJ 563, Ghee Weng & Anor v. Lee Khoon Eng T/A Prestige Construction [2018] 10 CLJ 189 and Kerajaan Malaysia v. Ken Reach Builders Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1648 in submitting that the A based on the principle of quantum meruit cannot be invoked to override the express provisions under Clauses 34 and 35 of the LoA. [43] However, what the SCJ failed to appreciate was that the Appellant relied on the following excerpt in the judgment in Syarikat Binaan Utara Jaya (supra, at pp 561 - 562) in advancing the argument on quantum meruit Written Submission after the trial in the Record of Appeal, Vol. 2E, encl. 8, pp 1238 - 1240): [40] However, there may be a quantum meruit claim in the following situations: (d) when work is performed outside a contract (thus, in a situation where there is a contract for specified work but the contractor does work outside the contract at the employer s request the contractor is entitled to be paid a reasonable sum for the work outside the contract on S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 the basis of an implied contract (Alexander Thorn v The Mayor and Commonalty of London (1875 1876) LR 1 App Cas 120 at p 127(HL); Parkinson (Sir Lindsay) & Co Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1949] 2 KB 632 (CA); Greenmast Shipping Co SA v Jean Lion Et Cie SA (The 'Saronikos') [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 277; and Cana Construction Co v R [1974] SCR 1159; 37 DLR (3d) 418, Supreme Court of Canada); [41] A claim in quantum meruit would be made on the basis that the respondent employer had derived a benefit from the work done by the appellant contractor and; if this is so, a reasonable remuneration has to be paid to the contractor. . [44] claim based on quantum meruit was in the alternative, for works performed outside the LoA, in the event that the court found that the Additional Works were not carried out in accordance with the contractual provisions or that the Appellant has failed to prove an oral contract or an implied promise to pay. [45] Extra work may be of the kind contemplated by clauses of the contract which provide for the ordering of extras. Extra work outside the contract is not governed by the terms of that contract and need not therefore be ordered in writing. A liability to pay for work outside the contract may be found by reference to the principles of unjust enrichment (see Keating on Construction Contracts, supra, at pp 111 and 112). S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 [46] Seen in this light, the Appellant has fulfilled the conditions for a claim under s 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 [Act 136] and as expounded by the Privy Council in Siow Wong Fatt v Susur Rotan Mining Ltd & Anor [1967] 2 MLJ 118 in that the Additional Works (a) are lawful; (b) were done for the Respondent; (c) were not intended to be done gratuitously as exemplified by the issuance of PC No. 6 and the e-mail dated 16.1.2017; and (d) the Additional Works were to help the Respondent to achieve the required structural finished level for the concrete upstand. The Appellant had incurred costs in carrying out the Additional Works, which benefited the Respondent. [47] Therefore, the SCJ was plainly wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the Appellant was not entitled to its claim based on quantum meruit. CONCLUSION [48] Premised on all the aforesaid considerations, the Appellant s appeal was allowed and judgment was entered against the Respondent for, among others, the sum of RM293,182.52 for the Additional Works and interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 3.12.2014 (30 days from the date of PC No. 6) until full settlement. S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 [49] On the issue of costs, Ms. KM Cheah prayed for costs of RM20,000.00 here and below in view of the duration of five days of trial, the total judgment sum of RM316,320.62 which was awarded by this Court and costs in the cause for two interlocutory applications (pursuant to O. 14A and O. 33 RC 2012 and for a stay which were all dismissed by the SCJ). [50] Mr. KS Ong proposed costs of RM10,000.00 as the amount in dispute is not high, nevertheless counsel acknowledged that considerable work and research were carried out. [51] I had considered O. 59, r. 23 RC 2012 on the scale of costs for trial in the Subordinate Courts and the submissions by the learned counsels before exercising my discretion in ordering costs of RM15,000.00 here and below to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant, subject to allocatur. Dated: 29 December 2023 (ALIZA SULAIMAN) Judge Construction Court 2 High Court Kuala Lumpur S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 Counsels/ Solicitors: For the Appellant: Cheah Kha Mun Messrs. Wong Kian Kheong Advocates & Solicitors D1-U5-01, Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 Kuala Lumpur For the Respondent: Ong Kun Sen (Victoria Loi with him) Messrs. Shook Lin & Bok Advocates & Solicitors Tingkat 20, Bangunan Kumpulan AmBank No. 55, Jalan Raja Chulan 50200 Kuala Lumpur Cases referred to: Allied Marine Transport Ltd v Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao SA; The Leonidas D [1985] 2 All ER 796 Aneka Melor Sdn Bhd v. Seri Sabco (M) Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2016] 2 CLJ 563 Azman bin Mahmood & Anor v SJ Securities Sdn Bhd [2012] 6 MLJ 1 Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd v Aquasix Corp Sdn Bhd & Ors [2014] 3 MLJ 812 Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn. Bhd. v Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 331 S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 Capping Corp Ltd & Ors v Aquawalk Sdn Bhd & Ors [2013] 6 MLJ 579 [2018] 10 CLJ 189 Chia Siew Hock v Chia Seow Gim & Anor [2021] 5 MLJ 51 Cheah Theam Kheng v City Centre Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) and other appeals [2012] 1 MLJ 761 Comfort Management Pte Ltd v OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 979 Daud Arshad & Ors v. FELCRA Bhd [2019] 9 CLJ 443 Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 MLJ 441 EA Technique (M) Sdn Bhd v Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd and another case [2020] 11 MLJ 353 Eastern & Oriental Hotel (1951) Sdn Bhd v Ellarious George Fernandez & Anor [1989] 1 MLJ 35 Express Newspapers plc v News (UK) Ltd and others [1990] 3 All ER 376 Fairview Schools Berhad v. Merger Insight (M) Sdn Bhd [2017] 1 LNS 1047 S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 Foong Seong Equipment Sdn Bhd (receivers and managers appointed) v Keris Properties (PK) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2013] 2 MLJ 361 Guthrie Sdn Bhd v Trans-Malaysian Leasing Corp Bhd [1991] 1 MLJ 33 Halim bin Saad v. Chan Yok Peng [2021] 1 CLJ 499 Hasrat Idaman Sdn Bhd v Mersing Construction Sdn Bhd [2015] 11 MLJ 464 Iftikar Ahmed Khan (as the executor of the estate for Sardar Mohd Roshan Khan, deceased) v Perwira Affin Bank Bhd (previously known as Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd) [2018] 2 MLJ 292 Jemix Co Ltd & Anor v Jemix Heat Treatment (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] MLJU 74 Josu Engineering Construction Sdn Bhd v TSR Bina Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 MLJ 411 Juahir bin Sadikon v Perbadanan Kemajuan Ekonomi Negeri Johor [1996] 3 MLJ 627 KC Leong Holdings Sdn Bhd v Datin Moh Bee Ling [2015] 7 MLJ 10 Kerajaan Malaysia v. Ken Reach Builders Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1648 Lim Eng Kay v Jaafar Bin Mohamed Said [1982] 2 MLJ 156 S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 Mahsurimas Sdn Bhd v Ravinder Singh al Shangara Singh & Ors [2019] 11 MLJ 281 MMC Oil & Gas Engineering Sdn Bhd v Tan Bock Kwee & Sons Sdn Bhd [2016] 2 MLJ 428 Molloy v Liebe (1910) 102 L.T. 616 (High Court of Australia) Namasiyiam & Ors v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 336 Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67 Rock Advertising LTD v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] 2 W.L.R. 1603 Siow Wong Fatt v Susur Rotan Mining Ltd & Anor [1967] 2 MLJ 118 Superintendent of Land and Surveys (4th Div) & Anor v Hamit bin Matusin & Ors [1994] 3 MLJ 185 Syarikat Binaan Utara Jaya (a firm) v Koperasi Serbaguna Sungai Glugor Bhd [2009] 2 MLJ 546 Takashimaya Construction & Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v My Influx Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2020] 6 MLJ 289 S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 Tempil Perkakas Sdn Bhd v Foo Sex Hong (T/A Agrodrive Engineering) [1996] 5 MLJ 542 [2017] 4 MLJ 791 Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229 Trimis v Mina (2000) T.C.L.R. 346 (New South Wales Court of Appeal) Update Constructions Pty Ltd v Rozelle Child Care Centre Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 251 (New South Wales Court of Appeal) Legislation referred to: Civil Law Act 1956, s 11 Contracts Act 1950, s 71 Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 29 Evidence Act 1950, ss 8 & 114(g) Rules of Court 2012, O. 14A, O. 33 rr. 2 and 5, O. 55 r. 2 & O. 59 r. 23 S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 Other Sources: Chow Kok Fong. Law And Practice of Construction Contracts, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018 Stephen Furst & The Hon. Sir Vivian Ramsey, Keating on Construction Contract, 10th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2016 S/N JqUTv6r7vUqQ9KfZfB9Yvg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

RA-83D-268-01/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MUHAMMAD NIZAM BIN ZUL KES LEMY

Keterangan saksi pendakwaan iaitu ibu Tertuduh tidak pada bila-bila masa pernah dicabar, keterangannya menghasilkan dua versi yang bercanggah. Percanggahan ini menimbulkan keraguan dan juga jurang dalam kes pendakwaan. Apabila keterangan mengakui dua inferens, satu daripadanya memihak kepada tertuduh, mahkamah bertanggungjawab untuk membuat kesimpulan yang memihak kepada tertuduh

10/01/2024

Puan Ana Rozana binti Mohd Nor

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5b224a7b-0d48-4dfd-bc08-af45c63bd440&Inline=true

10/01/2024 16:42:52 RA-83D-268-01/2023 Kand. 26 S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N e0oiW0gN/U28CK9FxjvUQA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m—s3D—2sa—u1/2023 Kand. 26 -52 1n/01/2014 15 mum MANKAIIAH muusmzr KANGAR AIHARA weunnxwa mu uwm wummn mum am zuL KES LEPIV ALASAN wspgnmnmu c FENDANULUAN remmm wan dntuduh melakukan mm kesahhan a. mum nuym 1212; ARI: Dadlh am. . 1952 my 214 yang bo\an dlhukum dl Damn n-um sum Akh 2:4 Fenuaunan Pmdaan mmmp Temmuh iflalihsepem mm mm "fiahawa mm pan. asramnm jam mm. kuranu 1030 pay: as ubuah runuh h-rllanul Jln Ann Kn «mun nun Jelempak uzm Ann, an 4. m mm. Ann, an alum ntpcrl Punfll, man mmnm noun Mrhzmyn n -u mom-mom-mum mm-u 1.11 gm... Dungln um kunu mun mollkuluvl kuullhun an mm. uluyln 1212] Am D: ». amumya cm ylnn bolull dihukum as bawah snluyin am!) An. yum nm:'‘. a 1 Tammuh pafll Iwnmyu lallh mmaun m bawuh neksyan my same :11 buwnh rmmbur lwl RA-53DrI72—02I2L721 pad: 5 Fohrum 2n2¢ um um um samnm ks pellngkzl am. .1." nmak pandakwaan man mamanugl ma omng saksw pea-aaxwaan dalam kes In! 1 2 wmun kamudmnnyn mun dnlepu um dmebnknn alah Mlhknmnh mumandlnnkln um um pmlk pendikwnan mg new mI|uk umhurw mm. pm 27 Janunll 2m N aomvvvw/u2ac><3rx:vunA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 1 3 Fad: larlkh Yinu Kama Tamlduh mlzuas BUD: flvbebaskan‘ Terluduh -em am-mm sen-Ia Gena-n wmuum .1. bawah seksyan Him: a. bawah nurmuvkes wuazmzsanmuza 14 Pmlk Pendnhwaln dnlam m M! pug: um memhum parmohnnnn m bawah rakryon 254 Karma Talacam mam unmk rneoemslan Ives dlhawah numbm kal ml vewzkal mana Ia tarherm m Dawzh rmmbov kes RA—aaD-172-oz/2n21 2. nun aauuuuo K5: 2 1 Pmak Dendakwaan nzlam kes ml lelah memanggn semmm enam amnu saw pew-damn NP’! (.1 Numl mm mm ZJIhanASF1), rn) Luna xapmu ><n..mx Anwlv hm Mulumnd s.m- tsm 4:) Hanan mm Che v-v-ya (span. M Sub In|p¢k|uvAb>dIn um Ham (sm Ia! Kovem Mam Khnlul bl! Kn-In rspsr din In sum rum.» am sum (SP9! 22 Eardaializn kaheriwan iakwiaku maaxwaan dv hadavan Mahknmnh, ucausm-n nlenunjukkm kmrangln new-an pm srz/202: pad: ‘am Iemh kmang in an pug‘, spa berssma empil arxng mggau mpm sanaman Swasalan Jena)/an Narlxnhk um Aran (clan membual serbuan flan Dennoflkuun ax mm rumah m mun man mm Kamnung Katalin Man Jemnpok Avlu Pen! 2 3 se-mm. darn pemianksaan Inrsawl unuan nan aanpaaa nuklumal yang mpemxen spa aanpau: gaming mm mg mm». swag! bu mm tsp» y-no Man mnununungw sou am memnklumkan mum muknyl mun mambufl man :1: mmm u-n mennunmsl am an mmnh sm -nmvvow/uzacxifuqvuun 2 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm ’Yhnnov\rsaa\mn mn.nw.mm;aw.ga..m: pcvlud uhlsunluvy m by Ilnfl cm: in ma pmuumun am am me umunulnrsces as to how an ammn nu mm mm a. cmumerzd m mm: m Ivwe m . mu mu-9‘ 5 m w. unun m bavkenun mmam Ielah dnpmusknn seelga malt man, Vncem NgJ u.mJcA> dalam kes mam Prunculnr v. Snw Kak Ltonnflltll 4 cu as lam» mauben perlngalzn hamwa dalam hal kudain uenegm Mahkamah mesh menem dengln mmannan untuk bevpuas mu mm. xmguan bahawa am ms: nu: pun mug (gap) ylng sellus dnlnm vanlman pengecldahan buving ku 'l mm Inmynmnrdecmun (Ice 9914 73 mm «m IQ 47; smed um m. mm-aaahng mun dmg mum .. by men nul km no In: preucul-on Ind mm w my mar dnalmn m pp , Tgn Ah my 1953 4 cu gm» m ddarsn wins 5: an ma aha mm mm m. Hm-mummy Hr nm— mm:\lmg mm drug emlmh . bynnerlnm Malta in: pmsecmm use‘ we Com m xaminsd um mmy flaw: no me mum a: me am; mun‘ ma um- ‘. .m..ma luv um m wuniry mm Hwtlwr, nor: mm m M muklng: DHVIII1-IIIIDINIIIOI Mhndlnl lbm n nu-navy av its own, tho cowl mm ...m.. mm ...= care. m nrdtv hr pg unisnea beyond dnnbx (mm mm in emu uvwl his dctevsce. me man at clou um nmllemian nu; mm... u mum . lnalouvlann yup In an mm M n...am.. nu amau... llrm Th»: aw wuuvd, upwn m. mnbhumd amnovmn In ran: «a m. pmuaumun cane’ 5 <1 Mankamah man menaml salumh katanngsn :ak:\-«ks: pendakwnan din mendapall mu. Oavdspu petcuvgglhln kzlzrnngnn memena. mum sm mnnyellhknn ummn mm m kwml nun mu -Iumbn km . sun 512 sn dalim keremngnnnyn mmymakan haham mm man mmyemhknn semuln eksmhm harang Res bersama Iapovan kmua urn kaplda spa pnda 2l5l2nQuam1D an aw sm -numow/uzacxiruqvuun :1 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! 51: Kelemngun IN am: an-mu meulm pevznwan <3 pemywhun aemun v-nu mumnan om. em a. Izawzh aeksyen was Kanun Talaum Jenzyih (ws-1) amem yang benkm 12 Say: man nunymnnn mu Vapour: nun.‘ bemnmbor mnnax zmuanosz hanankh can/zozv pa: ozonsmm |Im mao pagn way: mun nunymnxan semul: ammn Iavsebul bevumu Lapovm Rum: kauua Sjn 1A2990Tumv1.Ibm sum 5 «4 Wa\au baflawmanavun‘ SP5 dawn kelecanqmmyn menyamkan bahnvta behau man meruenma Iapovan km-a my bersena havanq ks darlpada SP1 pndnI2lA:2a21;aml:b\hkurIng1IDDP3|!]\ 515 Kmeungnn (enmu| man mun-1 meillm kawlngln spa an m Pemnyiln <4 penvmnn mun: y-nu 4. mn wan spa ax bnwlh ukxyen ms Kamm Tavzcavi Jemyah (W53) sepem yang benknl u Pun: izlulzllrij-mlelxnkuv-nu IV0K1I!lS:\.uyIIn\IhIunml:mum Mpuun Klml Nu flwuknn munm 21-FR-Knoaam burunl blrlr-w kesurlu (u new bur!’-I kn wowM‘n=n...a.1z‘5m..x¢enu...»w Iresetamaun Jabalan Kw u-I-ma sea Sunni Kg; -mow‘ dnanm: danpam .nn Hm: Vim: Pun uunn new ann huhan 519 s.<.n,mny. SP3 nwuqnuhkirl pm. unkh ynnn um. mu mm pm 12/omnzt wn um. km-ng 3 an yam hzflewlpil dw Senor Blrvlg Ken urn Am Pens‘ behzu hztzh menverahkan bamng kes bersarugkul Alan Report 291/21 um-na baranu mar man man: Lens Knheril snarnsux Fmuus Em sn. dun unluk a.1.n..xan din a-ump-n an saver sav-mg K-. IPD Ar-u Poms mhnqnwnnna yum mnynmknn .m..n yeranqgnn 5 plmylllm banulm y-on an .n man spa dw lnwnh ..«.y.n 4023 Klnun mu... Jenaynh (ws-37 5 :7 mm vda Pad: nnama mama pannnnonan unukmsa-nu: Dalflyatmn mun; aw bnmnh seksyen onza Klmm Yahmrn Jannynh ylng maenmknn elm sm in spa mm-c mm nmnaauunun mulwmann lankh sm -nmvvvnwuzacxifuqvuun H mm. snnnw nmhnrwm n. 5... w my n. nrW\nnH|Y mm: dnuumnl wa munc Wm! 515 Fmak peudakwaln M. mm mnmbenkan .pa..p. p...,.u...n menynaw pevcanggahan ml metalux rnanamana saksv paudakwaan. pemangqanan In amamn mp. Ipi-ops nenpellun bagalrnzna -a mm mm» 5 19 Mlhlumlh dnlam rm ml um. mammk ms nu V. Yen Eng wm [1999 team ynllfl (allh menyluknn . um yang mum ‘In In: use. mgr: an unuplah-ad cnlnvadlcliovu an won an :»m.n.zmx.. mm cnqandv: «mm u m be mammy or nuhnal pm-nulion wihu-um mm nn V... u. 039 wutorlmun Ivdunu These cnmldlmans mumlyfinnxx ma aim drxmuse: any Dlulmmiw assumwunmallioenlvsenuuuncwaeuueu mm. mm.=Mmu..myv up‘ Dahp sum... Smart V PP) were me mm Ina m-ny quuhnu! m apa- mm KM cm 1| mu. m mndudl mm .. . Iummncy at «am. ...uma in D: -ccumlu mm 2. in arm: .: . mm mm: Vouculwu has mm» unaprlmahcxeuseig rusllttemzuseflumquxredbyx Vfinn-I mum- Cant saw. an» my mmxcmna mcmuslsncles in! gun: .. m me nmnlvlmont nl In new-ad mm m. Iuupctl -mm. u. u M my cl wile-$6lnnerh1Vfid<mfi‘ nu ur-nuu=:ury lurmu wulflopvmxndlnl an-ma avamaxmn mm mnusrs evmenoe m me umumsun x Im mmpeueu vv mlwaa I-«nhgvenho more In amer of mumar 5 20 Wlhupun perunnalhl mm“ mm. h-mug km mu.ma.u.n etch 5P5 Irapada sm unluk mmausa Ielapw mam penung mm». mnhlumnh memsmn hihiw: mnlaxan psngendaharl having Ker Im hendaklah um same sekalnnrnmus flmam keadnn bamng yang mlvemukaknn oleh sve Devan: sm pad: namm Max herseal 5 21 v.rmgg-nunyungumnunmarnn menlmhulkln .-..m.uunmap; an llllmvwi mummlmkan mm maguan sum: nu Baring ken yam dixemvkikzn a mnk.-nan idahh Danny kg: yzny berkallan Herman ms nu atau Mak. dan samn am baring kg: yang em. amtumun mm Lam Kupsral Shamwl Fmans hm Snamuan mun hnmng kes yang sama memnndnngkzn sm dun spa m.Ismg-m-sing halanggah mangenal «mm mum: flan Iapoun sm -nmvvonwuzacxifuqvuun '3 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! kwma dlievahkan oleh SP1 darn ram peneumaan ekimbn darn layman bum: oleh sps 5 22 mm msnelm kascmmhan Kai w.u.m..., mum damn W um: Id: tom-put UPI-IPI lofllhlrli Lilfll dlllm unblurl knbrulilln ........ mug um... bum: mwtnludkun u............. lflnnuln um. Ir-s mu nu-k mahklmah msrudapah mink pondakwaan um gagll untuk nemhukmkin bihavol max mum lommng dalam ketermgm mengenm mmamn pengemnhnn barang us; Mankamah ‘ugh mamapau mmnw «mum mak u..e:m.umm mm penledasan umuk menulup kmomvarvfian ‘mam “mm: amen mmmm sum mm yang buav yam man mama: bunny m and»: d-Ilm m rm mmmoumnu awn menu: 5 23 can yang aem.m, mnhknmnh mnmutu-Inn Inhrun lnllpnli Dlfllmn mm diam yann munvak-n nal mun p-ma-nun mm. mm uu-wmm ylnu «mum-u ul hiwnll ul mm» Akin mun amun-yn 1152 u. n .. .: ....:..u dihukflknn um plhlk p....4.:m.... rat sun: :6: dadah hvubln. Mud: dalam mmm r-mmun 52¢ Eemuhlma derlgin mun keflui‘ mengenlv mama “mvhk:n" Tnamsan J aalam kes cm" Pear: Leon 1/. man: Pmsecutnr (use; 1 ms 17- [19§B]llL.l 237‘ (Alan manyaukan sapem yang benkul ‘pnuvuIon"lnrIM nurnoun ulcrimlnal lrodnvolvu puuulon mu — which um amhovln-s Iaml many or oonlml” —xnd knwwllllgn mm. m... mm. mm. pnunnnd A. m munfium mm ». mm m. (nmzwmg «lumen m Silphhfll rm mm say, .: p mm m whhm m. xc\-mus nlnnunx mzrllmned w rmv 4 -wens A mvunuia Inmg m we u no m me vouomm at a canon Man a. . -a smart»: with tuned to 4 mm he run Iv-1 war to am mu. 1 .. uwnw to IM exan-anafnlauverpevvsmu and vmenme umumsumg aresum name may he was-ma Kc mend Io do w m case of «end sw aomvvonn/uzacxifuqvuun I4 «M! smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Owe u. ebemaols msedud m umsmlln pussesmnn are an. «ma xndumw the ebmenl at emusrve wwerw aw, (hen um xsesuuxsned ‘s Dosstssmn nu axamv: D-fisusikm so much Vow emmve voesess-on‘ 525 Beiuandulrzn kspada ks: cm Fain Lam! yinu umyuann m alas‘ mm. meqndu suanu pnnup nmdnng-undnng ynng manup mm bag! rnembakhkan sesectang Ru mempmyal mmkan, pm pendakwnn peflulan rnambukukan me\n\u\ kclemnfiln n. .w. sesenrung nu menuunyumw. I: dun 1m 7: lb: suunlu mung ken dun mu hnmrunn liiu menwendnmun baramz |evsehm sepemmnya lanpa penglhalzn omnq lam {paweroidvsposslln me sxdusmn 0/ others) flan seseorang nu Ma pedu nmpunym pevgeuvmu. am suullu bunny helsebul szs Pmmp .m um m..m am bmynk mun: am..." .1." Mnhknm->1 vm memAIl< mm. pemelasan om. Mahkamah Rayuan dawn kes pay. ~.n.z.mmmmu..,m1 m.ms~;m 1AMRludImana mm. Hassan Lah mm mm. keuka mu mm. Inenghuvakannyn sepem yang mm M wrm ennstmln pnlssiswurfl In puuuwa Rafi V Mend mm Abu am. [man] 1 cu 457 mu rmmx com nu nude m. mluwmg uhunrvmun an m. nm mm} < LNS1!1l my NM .. In m..m.. Maud.-nln av pauamn m xaw has bun .mm..a by a lung Imn 1:? can: w. nun u unmrxsury la mnmu an mm mm sunnu-mama Mnrmlwn Mm-m m m N: Lnh 3 Mn mm .4 R [I943] 1 ms 72‘ [1945] mm 54‘ Gumnn-Slmlh A9 a: mu. dI\uuvr|1nuflfimuI at m. smnloem cm 51 mm -xvi mud mu mnrww .. I-wohhvwovfl no nwn‘m« -mm; nmuumln Ha we-nu--u Puuuluu, In mm to Incmxm - perm, mun um flu vnuwuwn characlnmltc Yhn nnnoumr mull know ms nanuu at tho mm: no-uma, mum nun In hlm - W\|~rnIuIIpo¢Il4wcvmnm1rII.andIII"! mullbinuvlcluu-Blhll .m..-n»..mz.um.. unn...v.m- In-nl mu vmseurm |x\ mun nu vrawmflhflvv mmenx rec mmmn mm: (snvflrfl try :\I1mEYK><I!slssuxI um: up cmmux rm "mu: 1: sm mum whom a ms w |1D6B]lML.ll§IwrmI Yang J m....a In nu;-ny uvmzmmmg (M mqmdml nflvmmudan an m. sm -nmvvonwuzacxifuqvuun *5 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! mm... nmmsfl bulumhsuuuldbe ...u.........eamm ......s....n H..L...¢.:-u um an m my am... mu: vntéesaun .s an: m....-. and possum wm mans 1:: w am... .>...m.|o.. mm. ...m......... mun hm: ....-..... nnunclnrlwn. m pom»... an... be man at .... pa-mm... ....... knmv lb: m... .1 .2. am WI--Ind ...u .....n um um pa-m of anwaul mu .. vvlzmm ms: u......a=......: pane“... rmsed no Dvsamvlmn .1 man: :u mm mam .e- ...zu.-_u.a.. unnm be c.m..n.. Axum m mu... ......s....a by nmm. which ....... Iwhubla .. lmlclu 517 Mahk-mm wan men-wk kes mm 4:... m mlusumu Kepulusan Mankamah Persmcuan yang Ielan manmapkzn n.....\p undanswndanfi my rank... hemubunn am... klwlhn an-1::-a.. ‘mums w:4I .emea.r.a. many on‘)! wslnay ureumrol ..ve.nma.aa...g... msmflc-em In euaursh ‘poltesswow n. ....,...... E. .. mnndy ....... .- m-.-wvnpanlod -nu. qvnscnu um um mmu ma Iuwninflgn .2. .9. nm drum. mm. .......=. 01 my -mum nmumnuon. kwwlndr v. to M moved elfllu by dlvecl evldmcn or nlrcllvmamlal ovldvnou Mn- knattkuqo alum mm... .......m.,. M m... pnynbral 5...“, ...;......... ... mm .. .....nn...... ... llwln .......m- ..o-.—-...... In 1.... .....xn.vn 52a mux pendakwun dulnm x... .. ....... ...a.v....m.>.... am... ruwaun rlumvmwul x.....I.... am. ...pa.. .1... .ua....e\.>...... .u.... an... ynng daham mgnannya .... mg... mengecualkan arm lam danpafla muwnya. akses Kevan: lemoal fladah m. mkatzkan nuumnau Penqelahuan .1... mm. m..........».... din ma. ha! kepdun .....m.. ks: an 529 sm dalam ue.......g..my.. um... Serhuan nan pemeulunn ..=_.s.=,.... am... ......x danpml: maklunm yang dmemleh SP4 daupada .a.. Tsluduh ..a.... spa yang wan ...e..gr........g. SP4 flan memauumkan bahawa anaknya msmbull knew a. .....u.. .1... meniumng a... a. ......a.. Iavubul flan bsHau memmfl mm poll mm..." mp-x yen, ¢ ma .9»... mengumbfl unau- ssa sm ne.w..a angguu lelah beqayi mnuk ke dahm mmah seflelah memeuhknn mmu yang am......m.. Men sva, behau Ielan mm»... Tmudun ma sauna um... bomnmuni m hadlpin ubuuh mm. 5... .....mow..;.c.<:m..u.. <6 «w... 5.... .......wm .. ..... .. my .. ..nm...uIy mm: dun-mm VII ....m pm... 5 31 spa mnmum wmullkiaan am badan Temaduh din Izaak mm-mpau spa-apn hzmnn snhh Serelah pemeuksun mlam max (ersebm mg: bank menemm an-zap: bararln salah, spa Han meamawa Tenuduh umuk membual pam.-nun dl mug umu vumah Innumn am dalzm Pemsnklun GI mama um um uum m-.. mu mm spa mun manpumpal n1u kuhk rukuk nunmu (P3) .1. dllwlmy: mmglndulvul mm plkat mm: mm...v bum nmuk a... klmi-n .....g...um_;‘ duyikw dadlh .y.bu xpauren 5 a2 spa «mm kelevangirvwa mu manbevuhu mahkmuah hahnn seoamnng pemenlsaan yang duals/Ikan alen spa dnlam mmnh cersem behau mm bevada narumuama spa can amiwla samuan 5 aa Bellau sehnlumya Ielah menyalakan banavm semzh pm. nmxzu yanu menghubungkan mmgm Vuav deugan Hung tamu dlpecah men spa an pasukan mam bemamasama spa dun nnsnakan Ieh-sh masuk kg bnhagwan dalam mmlh dun spa mu munblwi spa din palniun tam: mawk kc dlllm am Tnnuduh dun Y-rwaun um. rnenqrwluvknn hnqlnnyu nun. spa unmk mm." 534 scuvan Yamaun aw ulah pom, spa membenuhu mum.» mm spa M. mun memhuu pamenknan mmnann boa ylng W... nigh r.m..« dun mmg=1uk.mmuk use was mnemn .1... many Iknn mm. spa bahawa mereka um menemul 5:49: Damn: salah flan damn: neg Iillas mm: dan purlu mlmbzwa vmm unuam kn baht unmk membuat lauovin pals a... selzmsnyn memhawl mum may am mmnh Ienebm sas spa marmfikan spa an puma ad: mcmhun pamuun n .1: mangan hm lemmmnnyn m hnmglln mung umu spa mg: mm memun spa can vasmmn ada menemuw sem kalak mm mmmu (pa) -1: dalamllvfl mngamurm enlm pekst Dlaflvk Msmal bans: iemuk can kemhn menuanuu-a. kw n-am synbu wane» 5 as spa an sps sehihknya man membemahu mihkalvuh u-pm spa afla mengwkul masuk up dalam mmah temp: selelah setesax pemenksaan dmam mm Nah spa din spa fidak mefllkamvax apnea Darang man. spa (ahh sm -nmvvonwuzacxifxavuun *7 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! rvwnuaukkan sws um kemavumux rneniehkkan sv: mpenanuuunmmmn sekuanya Ina-ma mm xe. mam flrtemul 5 :1 svs dnllm u mm rnaninnhnn um-mg.» spa mum hiring an dadah dnemw um um men mu m buflflmln mug Ixmu nmuh bench»! 5 33 Mihkamah ml um: maklum mm Sm zdalah man man: Tevluduh. Walau bagawmnnapun, ipnmli ukslmaupunyil pqnalun oengan mum muk ada undang-undang yang menynuknn bnhnm katarlngln mu. um.” mmml-n mmlak wvsnunlvvl dun mg." nvunmru .9.» knhemngm mm muvwunk mm Ysmduh Mnmk-nuh dlhm kn .m mcmpnk kn ylng man dlmnuskan o\eh Mnhkanuh Rayuan dnlam has x. ‘flunk: Mn. Public Pmucul/.1! mm s cu m» (20:11 4 nu ma yang Han menplakan sepem yang mum “(:21 Befme mm-u nu ma drfawl. mlywl flxzuallhn um: uwvumarlvy Iabema m an ‘mtgvutea pusrlmn‘ Imnua mm SP3'xemder-2 mum: :1 mt mm ». mm mm huv Iwcm mam. rm bum wrmbuilud m -my wry by m.p.um« Mduu upnodw », 5P7, IN presence MSPH ‘s mnlnrwde, mu. m boon bovrvwod by in: -vbefllnl urlov mm In- lvdunm or sun and spa Won ‘s no man.» Vega! prveiumwnnor unmwse mat am. on every me an mterunsi wanes: tanflu ms angina mun In amanma -mm man um.» um rs my mom mam. e» um mnemse ms evidence .. evtmbfl m n: halved pm: Prouculavv :1»; cm mm ma 1 ms :5 [mo] 1 ML! o7, Pmnuluv 195311 ms a‘ man Mu «am In mm a we mmny mated mu mums nu in day‘ an mm: my comm - mm: mm been aaducod Mrwwumcn an u-ma lo aedaoce “ 5 39 Gian kelana katgvannan SP3 Mak Dada bwlauna mas: pemah mrahat‘ kmavnnglnnyi nvangvluxlkun duh vem ylns wcwsuan P-vcsman-n -u mnnxmhmk-n knlaguln an M. .....n,; an-u luau wmm n. 1...». kmerungnn memkuuaua mum mu divlpadanyu mamllvax mm nemmun‘ mahkmuh bemvvguunmvwab unluk mambuI\ kawnpuhn yang mammak um. tenuduh 5 An Mnhklmlh dlhm meuzm p.ng.muu.n kahvlngln yang bsvcmgglh mu-a nun mnnkvindnkwnn ma.m.x.n mlmwk kalylnn u.:.nmp..m.x... sm -nmvvvnwuzacxifuqvuan *9 «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! oleh Mamman Rayuan dmam kes PP v. Fbn cm Hugng @141 :2 cu 12: a. man: Mzhkrnah Riyuun Itlah menyemuepem yang berlkm Thin run In Imli-tmum .1 Pwru uuflll n u. unhllulvwlunfly. mu nu nnlnn .....u..u on mean! u an mmmm.-. nudnkl mm m a. mum kn :. Mn dunnlntafly up-uwlld »-..m... m It»: Fihlbxudx-nu’: an m . mmatmn mm ma pvnnacunm . wxdence mm: M mounomm.ma.. annulvmscn xmm. nccuteaflavoun u mxhndmyoi u-scaumam. -«mm. m.mrmnmu.=m.mu«u mm Mow Rum Aau samlznoel 1 cm 451 mass» In vmuk! be wmrw Fm um. can In mweoewy msveswd Fwss evnenue burn‘)! no me ms but an: ‘s an .m=u.u.a wlmeu lnr n .. mm abvuzul n ma: mlmsu m Ylw . wvnpman mm. N huumld .4. mm-mn-vn-nu mimllihl mm. u.:m..m... WIVI mmvidulmu m m. pmnmmm-. can - TM ahnwn n.v.n..m m \:wIs Ilinhcnbie m the pvesem 1:32 Smog SP1; um um: ml meamea his avndemze vaulted m Iwu mumsnry vemwu ». evnamx melted - w-9 m (M m=..m..m=...m ur. mum at .1... m [Mm mx..m.a m-man. nu mam-1 SP2: nvsdnmx mm m. an... zamulla by arvvunn Ind u... rum m me eniusrve use no me neluumlenl when the |7mser.uuuus evldawe mm. M m Vmagnues an: avwcn .. m In: Accused lnveuv me mun a any was um... mVlvIm>1VIvuur-DH la n. nu.» 541 M.mm.« luau (clan menlluk mm lam Ines mg dwvllluskm can Mnhknmnh mm mm m 53;» um. M. V pp Ly1g ; lg mp ggvg ,1 cu flying mun menmnnn um. pmangn-run mum xemnm slk um pfinflnkwun my rnamknman vim yn-In barhnzn rmnierm seumu lama none» rnenyeuabkan hmbulnya kaliiuan kepaua kes Pfivdikwaan Mahkzmah Rsyuan wan vmlqhakwvumwu «scan rnenyutzlran Iepem yang bevlkul ~¢2pw..mg..n.u (mum! .a.x.n I-mu din munudxralkan hi pmdakuaan kavina ‘a maihalxan pmmn mg puma; mm mm .1: dmzhvalahunbcvflamlam|:gun21x|k:ba\:np:riyunmznuAIsavbu:n m. ma-nu uhlnnq u.....m. m...s.. .:..m mu... an-n Dlrluaunun. Imnuun umeux nnmuun dlult um «um mmrm Iwnaaa mumuh mulanunya mun: lwauuan mm: dalipada knunnglrl p...mu..... undln Fmannn mm. kzlar-win sm -nmvvow/uzacxifuqvuun I3 «W. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Wnfllkwun nwmllh um. scum mm. .1. -kmr ken wmnmun memaiukn mnmamah mm mm menualahkan m-Many: ne-tam. mar flan sewkupvvya mm who isoek mm mumn. yang menyokmg tun mmmnu mm mm-um unlnr mun.-mu.n mm: m kaniflum mu wmhmvunt .mo-um man mu mam... (Elle:-111:! mu "1 ma. yxm mam-n m mnrlumlh menaevm nu mu n n... m.x.. mu nmmuk lwplfll wlyn dun yum mm mm: rvwmmnkbr-naanrwa s<ez=«-nnanvv-u mmmaxms-aapmayuunuu mm m sebaaaw Deni! Iewafl ms sehllrsebafl yang munasabah wx belah menenma ksletanaat nemnaaan yang mu iabagax new Adallh luriuwduln mm dc m kudun nu-mw. unaur-u»ur-a--c mu lwmlh-k mm. -mm.. II-mm u mm mm. auumn nuns- vmyu. K-unlnn mm u--mum... unluk ..-um.-km kwmik mum keun-mm Innnlknl 5-nun Ihu mm... mm dmuhtiun mm Imnqlklmun mm-n pcmnnm 4! mm. umum Fembelnn um wvllmr-II m»-um wilunun mum Inn '1 ma mam man flwbiwuru :22 Aklzkennnnxfllk-spflmufucvulgundnwkhknn Igvhadln perayu 542 Dmam kes Im reniavm dua mm: yang amen ma-m danpafla kntavlnguu suku my psndakwun, mun. perums ylng mm. mlumukllun men spa mu PI! dun w«1.smn.mu.n.n .u.. m.,. klyu an hnhngmn mang mm mm man s Demanknnn ylnn umnm man 574 dun mgqou «mm an mferens mua adalah sehafialmana yang dlkemulakan uleh spa mm P3 flan mus) max Dada mnama man dnemul darn atas ma haw 4» mm tamu lcrxebm memandangkun sou darn anggm aemuan hdak pemill pad: unam- mm membun|oemev\knnn an mnngnn lmn mum aaxm. bmk m mm Tedluduh mum» mu menamm mun: mung nun aanpnd nu ma]: km .1. mung umu /umnh \anabm 5:: Damn nan Im Mavens yang mewlmik kepada Tenuduh mm Mamas bvnswu F3 on mum milk pamnh pm DH:-ml: mu unmm amp-1. plmlliulnn a m mmnh ylng um. m..um.. mun son a mm; “mm mm ammhul sm -nmvvonwuzacxifuqvuun 1" mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 2a Behau Iehn memmln Dink palm mevuhm smpdx ylrlg duyiln man mlrvgambl dadah 25 sum. ...............>. ....>......... dlrlpudl spa, spa ml-n mIubuI| M... .....m...:... can mnvlgumpulkln umpl .....g.m dwl mambon Inklmlnl mm: Emma Ievsebm .......k .......e...u...o.. se.........1. Kiupunfi KuarIpMI1I. Jelerwuk Avau.Pa1Is 2: spa .1... plwkln beige!-k a. mum am... mm... tug: bulh mutnsixm dun uebevum .....p.. .1. Ian... spa cam. Iwlnqhubunfil spa .......x ...a..w.a\ pm lukziv lumah mm. 2 7 Anal: umpu a. m..p.. x.1..:..... spa dlpul n..n.u. ma-pa. ubuah ruwufl y-no hnvkunnu .1... .1. xahulnhnyn ...1-pm .a:....r. Van. ......... .1. umun mar. 25 Semnu spa .1... ...a........ .....u. spa (nun band: a. nu... mman udlng ..........gg.. m..a..... spa .1... 9......" spa Iolmudlnnnyl ...... nungeluk pm... hndlpln .......n yang a....n...m.. ohh spa. memhan ulnm .1... ...«..p...«e.u.m .1... mm. pom zv setemmya ulepas menaeluk Dmlu .......r. .1... ma. jnvupnn spa bevnmu spa my. bemnnn .......x ............x. .......>. (nrnbm y... I... p\nIu .1. mom... 1...... .......r. ...u»... yang man dnurunk aleh sp.. yang menylukan bnhavn: pnm Ieuehut Ham .....u.r. uflluk a.p..=m.... 2 in mm. spa Mvl nu mm mm. hen: . muck kn dnlnm ......-1., mu... my. munlhln sum 1...... mnhyu ylna nedlng am... n......g.;....¢ .1. mega. iabuah an... a. many Iamu 2 .1 spa um. mlmpevkanllkan a... mega. pm kepad: lalakl Mevayu mnabcn mg... ...a...m...m.. km x... . dun! uh m-mmm pumenkllln um bldan mu. muayu henabul sunmauk ...a...u....u. man: u...-.; - L... 2 .2 Somali: spa memhual pemalksaan a. dmam nmx flan ndak meruumpul .9"... .......g 3...... spa manhunt: Iulpek unluk msmmm punamuan sm .n...v.>.»....;.c»<..m.m 3 “Nate 5.... .......w... .. .... .. my .. .n........ mm: ........ ... .:.....c pm... 544 Dahm hm um ma mas mu-namu mm Dendakwaan umuk meqehskin pelmnggihan kahelarvgin am-u ukmarw yang lahh mecmnbulkan keraguan am. can Tenmuh manpunym Mgann dun mmkan Inmadav F3 nan Mwu. 545 Tam: uaaan flan mxlilan. Temmuh moa hank bmeh mkanakan mempunyaw psogalanuan as P: can runs» senaflivmanz mg Ielah uwusxan oleh kes he Vbnbim Mung 5 Any V. PP[2g41[ 5 QL[11; 5 as om. yung a.m.n..._ mlhkamlh um n-muwmn buhna inupui kedu: mm mm mnnm Lama: u.v.m m .n Tonuduh ulah man unmk dlbukluun «en nmzx peuuumnn. I. Kzslupuuu ac Ezrduavkan Pemman kelellnqnn seem: mnkunmm Iemadip kmmua iakmsaksl Der-dakwaan Mahkamah betvendanal hahawa Dmak pendakwaan ielnh mm mm mengemuknkan kexerangm ylng kukuh unluk mambuknkan semi: uupzu Defluduhau m bawan seuyen 121:» ma Dadah Bemnmryn 1952 [Am 2:4; dmukum m haw-H saklyen mm Am yang mm gm pundlkwun um q. 1 unluk mlmhukltln luau dun ahmuvl mm neaumman bemenaan s 2 Eeniuavkan ihlsamllasan a. mu. Milkamah ml mandlpn plhak pemakvman (em gngnl unluk mengemukakzn sum keg pm. lame mamp Tanuduh alas vanmuhan yang dnkemukakan ramadunnyn an flnrlplda kamunann ynnu dmemuknknn -mm «mu iahmn unluk memnrwml Ynmmuh membela dun ms vemmunnn Iernhm dun Mihkamlh m. max hersema umuk meniahmcan Tenuduh Mk: Demhelaan mpmuu flan Temmm memlhh unmk nemm um 63 OM: yum: flemuuan. Yeclua-an dengun xn. dflepas flan dnbebaskln dllunda penuamn m brain m bawnh uklynn 1242) Am mm aumn-y. sm -nmvvow/uzacxifuqvuun 2* mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm wsz [Aida 23:1 yang dmukum m hawah uehyen awn Aku wwbm (anus new mpanag-I umuk memwa am Bemnkh co Januan zuu mRa Mnpum Mahkamah Mausue| Kangar mu. Plhakmhak avg: pmak pendlkwavl Puan Numllhluh mm: Al: msma Bag: pmak Tenumm am Main‘! xnam Hafiznfldm hm Ramn sm -nmvvow/uzacxifuqvuun 22 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm .1. mung umu mmah u...u.m.x um dzlam plrvwnkuin .1. mung Ixmu .1. Ilxs sebuan ...e,. kayu n..|..., spa mar. meruunual szm km». rnkok Dunnm ¢..1a\amnya men.1an.1unu. enam Dakzl Maink lmsmav buns. max Gan kalulan ......g.....1....g. duyukl .1..1... sylbu 213 Sativusuya spo «em. Ivwmbvwu bahk Vehkl Mehyu Ienehm ke a....g..... Smumn mmr. Narknm‘ wpn Am... Ferns 2 .4 sm mm. .......m.. ..mm...n ...r...1.p mm... x... am». .1... am. .......g 1... .....m. ..1.:.n 1: an gum 1.... (am. munbuil ...=... lapomn m...1<s>amu....m.. 2w21.pm.1.... setamsrwa spa «eh» menyevihkan Velakv Menyu mrsebmyanx-1 dlkemlv iebagaw Muhammad Nlzam bin 2... K... Lany (w.....1..n-1 .1... Diving kg: kepndn pegnvan peuyhsm 219...... mm. spa 2 .5 spa ...I.... ......q......... hmemu: Damn; kes ke Jacnun Kmm Nlmaysm ......... dlanahsa aleh sp1 yang |e|ah rrrerwankan anausa lermdap oamg has .1... mmgeuhlun buuvvs kes yang mrarmas .......g.....1....g. 7 47 gm Me«hamDhe«am\ne 2 IE Tmuduh kamu.1.a..nya mar. .1.n..1ur. .1. mahlumah ms... ...emk..>.... kesalahnn .1. ha»... seksyen 12(2) Akla yang haleh .1.r...x..n. .1. Damn saksyan aw.) Akla 234 1. K:nunuxu1uunms—uunAm: 31 Seks‘/En wan) Kamm Talacam Jenzyan (‘kn’) (eh?! mempemnmmn bemenaanmgis mankamar. .1. akhlr was pmax Wndakwaan La: me able dpwsewnon) Mahkamah >.e...1....m. ...e«.......n.... sam: .11.. pmak pendlkwnln mu. new. ....n..s. mengemuknknn sun... m pnmn Vane Izmadnp nm..1.m n... p.n...1....... ...m.1.p..y. Imu ...1.k Iebemm mma... .9 an kepnmnn .......x ..........gg.I 1......1..h mambola .1... Ala: panuduhen ......-1.9.... ax... mebepsskan .1... membaashan renmm. fauna memanflml rem..1.m umuk memhela am 5... mumvnwuzacxifnvuun 4 «w... 5.... ........u. .. ..... .. my .. ..nm...uny mm: m..... .. .n....c pm... 2 2 M-hlumah Pulukuluan damn kn Publn: Pmluwourv. none that ,_/£1 (elah menggamkln nsnduan kevada Mahlrzmah hekauian mgas mahkamah m akmv kes pamakwaan :1. Mann em: Sn Rum ma as he then my man nanymnhn upem ylng bsrIku| 1 Fur n. gmdlnu of IN com: Wm: wa wmmmn mm on ma- ma mom be mm by . um mm at me an av Ina wmaumnnk me «n. dun m In ptauwlnaru em wand KM Ivmnu w-a Irv mu pwseculm m ws mamycu . mnvnum uvlmllum cmm, Immun- ma aavbdlly m exh at me pvuseumn-Vs mama rm mm mmum an nawnabh we-ncesthai mly be drum «mm mm ewndenne mm -wanna mm. mm a mu: Inm-nun mm mm. In Imuuna mm H mm hvumabh m m. Icmnd. W ..x ymmu an anthem m um can now. (ha mm In man m flalunu Ind ha mm In mum Idenl nm u prapurafl In w-Md mm an m. -mama now below me’! Wme Mswev In mil mm" rs ‘Va, mm . puma Inn: an In Min ma. oul ans ma am-as mm be “M u mu mm .. Nu‘ m . Mm no. can Mn no! hoen mm am me In: wound was an Iouunled. my elbow mu dedama um um, me Icculud alum: In rumnm . comm my mu dnuwu m am In aacuwd elem to m ev-dance‘ men an through m. mm In! um m nu Y Public mu.=mnva:; « ms :2 men} Mu zsr as Pemmnpnm /anxlmak mlakmlan m hawah KYJ w. uhlgclmnnupun‘MuhklmlhPsrIekInu:m1a\:mktsEAl:I:nDlnd‘nn pa "M "'=W'W'=‘Kl" bevkerunn mm. puma lune Iepalllmina yang um: mu m In: day: with an: lurlhe pmnnunan wmld mm... ha I: mo um... Inlflcn-1! la mm o. lacuna u r. -ha: m rvmam mm It In Irwwa u mm: amrmalm mm ; puma law: :50 has um nude on TV-3 sm -nmvvvnwuzacxifuqvuan 5 «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! mm a. M rmxdflm rlqmn : cansdlvlnun at rm lxmmou 1:! my _m..me mum m In: use I-zr me Wnuamnn n (have .1 any sum mm were un be no pun. (la: ans: :4 Muhklmlh mm .1 lm mum Knw cm: Public Pmneumr [ma 1 cu 734 mu?! 2 ML] 10; man 2 Am: :9 am. mulghmil berkiruan u|iin unluk mannrllukan mu m. wmu has mar. amm.x.n mu hank sepem yang beuknl ‘Yn nuv mp-um vlaw m. (mud Int «a bi -sum m mumww Mmlwv . .m.«.m. cu: r... bum man: um urmr 1am m. wnub xpplymllnal mm. n; g a, gay mltun .. evtznsuraled m meuxignbevn .11 mm.“ Venn sm FJ m ». nun mi) -. gm-_mm,,_.,.m.,m.lLm, .4 Pubhzfirmaculur ma CLJRnnID1 maaxzcum maalzuuzazm p m To summauxl u would Ihcrulerv anvur not having rvgam In m. nmmm wmrux mam;-a us up n pnma (am: ale has an bun ..:.um.»a -my Nnmm Jalun ma A111 Alxluhn lm: uamd nnnzd and m. vuunhlcmucd mum (Mini -m..a...m wank! -..n.mr..w cur-vlumn In uln-r wuvu « mm mm In ..m..n mu mw Mmm 1 mid may nu pm-my anwad in do even Itmwh I121 Ive bema me-1 undu I11: Emzwenvi Reeulnnmsr me Quemen .5 am {My be uermaeu al In: ulfenee aw lg ma Mm ndm an M In an Egg; 7 My mum to In quell-an 3 m In men-v-‘w mrmammllnmwtwun .,... xumllnd bu:-m-mfirnd nulfWw\n|h::meme11s1Bl}(1mIneCPCIYu.I\h Ixkzvmnyflunumufnn .m..ea Demon Invenum sienlllheduse arneuusemmn mu Furmerue um nan-M m In: Vequlnve umenmn M Prlhmenl I: ex-wesseu m we nmu-m -mum-4 by n In am. 1...: mm: mm: a. . dull unvmn by - um- Imfluv ;_1agvm-n m aauntd nluclslnlvmaln mum xsiuopuwdn Fgggv Fuhhc Pmuggv uggg 1 L5 3 [1934] 1 um 17 x.. mm wuvna. u. an urubtnndumvavanymrunnnmn m.g...g.om. mu-mly luvmum-ax no man vaaunru . my umng mom Hm I. mum . mmmum .u.mm mm mm Mm! Im Icnud mm um mm». mm! to main . maximum .mm m mam mam m no-mat av ml :1 17: am: an we vmsennmnn use n mw. com. um man u my on nxamu m-I . mg. ulmw um umr hx za undmake at mg dose mm Vv-Human an H: mun mm ma pmuumun nmoznm In nuxmmm wamalmn ma On .1 sm -nmvvvnwuzacxifxqvuan a «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! :-ms:-r me a-mm m Genus m an upon an mma In emar ha am...» and he elem w vemam s-em um I Dmvllud m Carma mm um the «away m m. Mdeoce nomlmod m an pvoleunnn um u we nnwacv u .. lhe neullwe mun nu Dhmu hm: can rm um mud: am In: nu. -(mud wuld a. mans In .n mum! ‘' 35 Bag: meflfievnuk-Iun mam kasnmm «.amm.a.p mmm dnlam kn m BM-h mum ma Am D-can anmnm 1:52‘ mm mum." nammn menunlukkan xnuvumnllnnx keslhmn mg muxm mu.» mnmmnn ‘am 4;; am» ylng memo-knn mu pmm pafluduhln - n crush sehngnmuru mg dllmxykln .1. hnuh m biwuhlxu mm Bemaruva 4952 [Am 2341. Han lb} mu. bemnhny: zmamx um . dullm rmllun Tenuuuh 4. Ian uunnua-urmnma 4: Bemasarkan fakh yang dvksmukakan nth pluk ...m.m.n. nu aw rmapan Mankarnan adahh sepem yang benkm 1.; mm m dnanh ylng mamplkln rm pelluvl plrluduhln - um um» bemahlyl Iahagnlvum ylng fllxenlvmlun dv nmn Janna! Penamn Akla Daflnh Belhlhiyl1952,d.In W nm: Ian a-an bemahuyl |Jr1Ihu| hora - a-um mmvan Y-msmm s. DAPATAN nu-cxmm In) sun. .4. -an-n yum: mmunm. ml mum n-mum’. mm. am» bmumyn uumumunu mu ynnn dhlnnnlhun 4: am.» Jaduul Punznu ma Dadah Bcmallaya as: sm -nmvvonwuzacxifuqvuun 7 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 5: Mahkamah dalam mecuawua Asu Dennmi mm. menuuk kepotusun Mlksmah myuan dalam kn: Gmukn all bmichaggfgg g Q“ ll. » mg mu 4 Mu us 1111414 cu 551, an mm nempoh penlmg m dahm mam kamrinyan nanny Res Hanan zdmah flan mass ranya durampas semnggu m dun:-MI ohh um mm- m a any bamdflflv use whll u mmanam . Inn a must henrmzd mi: K: the Maine: mm was vemwerm out will serum In: chamsl Inr lnuym: um! u . um an ....m. um 1: «ma (:2 a. Mvmn av alrmlbu .4; ma .1 m Input: nmuc Iuhnanm nu! an -owned m chimed min uamdunn so. the cam 51 «dance » more -mpanan car the penod iron: the Inn: an mauvey am ma mmpieuan M an anawus by was a-ms: am man a does mt mnuumymeumh nmuxnou wlpnndvrom m puuot-In Inclho-‘.evoty and mm mm be ama \c am aa.a....=. av ma ma»-a uvurvrnm wll P<rsorIIb=mmsAndn1me«\sabmai< =v=n5wnrI:dly meusemu rm nsomd be no covmmnn n-mm ma: nai m be waved and me mama M Wwmn u wn-I run In a. paauaa u man: a nu Iuuurvenhm van Iowvorud (Mlwu-myuubymaanmut-nuvuunama-Mtom cnnnumm um 15 luv 1?: umma allhalsamesuhdanoemal me aecusw rschuqw mm az Yhnpm-flalmn mlmdwdnnmiu am -method ummaa-maa rm iaamalnnn m aqad aau nu mm.-.xy me-H mmmaa .s an mm ltdepaxdx an man. and ummmu Much can Yhue my D: a gap nu ma mun ac amuse: am, a my mama. mung man yap‘ m. axmhxtx in mm ....m..a mm d-nlafxatuzn numbm-. mm u rm nvbdmau of lump-mo. mm -a nam. mu: wows am m to - aaam Inn um um \- ma ambnmahuas ucuvnld m cm: case no man was anarym byme damn the Van mm Imam .; 3 gap‘ u an cmaumnznoec an In: use, may not yvn me (n my doubt at max ms 43 The xemnd penod a mm the lime Inn: :1 was taxman um am the anemm um: .1 x5 mama m mm m my new the mm M zvkaenue .. Vs: wanna»: dwnni um. ucund Pinnd Tm: .. bunt: _m llm ma. man u nu ‘ma manna -mm memoir-d mull n. pmdunad m mun an n ml the pmcman-. mm mm mcaumy «an It may nr 1: may ml. agzn devemng nutheilds-name umumsllrkzeluhuzh mus Evan m . mum ml! mu a..a my mm Pmflnmd Inmuvl sm -nmvvbnwuzacxlfxqvuan 3 «mm. smm nmhnrwm .. med w my me mmnnuly mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 5 2 Mahlumlh W ma menlluk kus Public mama: V. gm: Lung Fug wng Mann Ielnh mnyalakan damn xes mlsepem yang benkm ‘M Imcvmnoc M . chum lw lhu Inflylu av own :1 mm a nu menu 91 ammon M end:-we M an na ma ml W uImI:u\Iv: at lhe ma and an by hum m M evneme u mm not us moon renamed m ewdence man a an . a need ml wmlm su-‘ll Dnrnumrx m my mm n has been mm by M1 mvaay am-1-my saw... Cnwrluu av M 7: [am , up «pg 9 59 3;‘ av um 250, men 1 ML! 492, 9» 1 gm §.n )3]: ;g&LuLu [1:31] : MLJ 42: and KhaoHIC4an1s use mat n. ma u anfluod Io ancnpl mu Ivldumn cl nu chomluon In van. u . -«mm: IM me: ny luv mm in no line dull: ol mm nu am In an unamory ma Dy um um... n .. mvnmnly mcndubll a. ma dohuuc an. «mm m ruhlflhl by man... uvfll ma. n we -mm a aauxam mm In mnchsxon reamed by me chews: an a 604 hm to smvnm In aamm an a wmncu tot max pwneu at paduov avwflenoe m nhunzl Ymn nu mat am done mu. mcuud mm. on Thom-m tnpa-uuwaaua n ev-Gem: m lms :25: a haeiure not dekclwe‘ n Kalamng n Mangan ,; K. 53 Wzkau Dafiawuananun hag: membukhlan elemen amma lelah mpanum -mun ...g. muljum tlnggumgwlnub pmnk pandakwuan mm. mangemuknknn uauamgm yang menurqukknn mm mm..." kelanngnn rmnfilnai mwm.u.;. havlnu kn n mu .1 .n. u|uh dun Hank pm I1-Va-ml: mas: Ievmas uhiiaxmana Ylny rem mpelaskan Men Mnhkan-In Away dalnm kn um Osman Fawn V. mu: PmsIcwor[1DD9 1 cu Hg ma sc- masu ML! 11n-msa11MLRA an 54 max pmudnkwun mu meyaknknn Mnhkamnhu bnhnwa mua .. kel-mnflun harxenaan mm mun akwhn dun mu: um» um: mull am.» flan mamas. senmflfillah mu: m muamuxaxaa sama. bavani um um Mahkamah (flak Pemarl ma mxaoua mas: |erDmus sebaummani yam wean mpumskan damn has guru/gg Rmqcnanumn L 01: v. Pplygzt g._1 551 54- 4uuus- zuuu mr suvkus am -nawvvnwuzacxifuvuun 9 «ma saw n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 a may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm 55 n.u.mu..»v.uamr.'mg,m:m;; uggzaz Mahkzmahtehh menerangkan bahzon eemzpax uua swarm yang wen mnyaeanun mpmusnya ramauan kelcungln Fgnzms‘ apnhula mm peudahwzan gagzl unluk memanggxl anus: mateml berhuhung German pengmuauan mm: din kadun .p.m. eksmbn yang nmuam p=m.|... lelah dlhenduhkun dangun mu. om Mn 56 Mahkamzmuga merwuk rm mm: Pnuocutolv. Ln vm mum; I ms mm 4 ML! 221 bamubung dengan penmmn mengecm Vumplng/gnu am-m pengtndnlun mung kg: 4. mana Mahkamah man rnemmnlknn sepem mg mm “[57; mm burg: mm qnslum Inn mlnypusimhlwa as nu ma: mpmu m In exmbn: dmmg «run \-mm m me cm. ovc..szo¢,, sum|hm\Ic:rmo1 5. a.n..uwy mmmn «mum lny am: on: m. mm»-g on-Nu am an unlampdmd M unanlr-H “ 5 1 Eng: menemw lsu lama ad: knmipallpaipa lumping (W) .1. m kvtnr-Innun m.ng....n unhl-n p.......4.u... up.” has my loan nwwujudkul kn-Igunn nu mm hung kn nun in-k mnhklmah mun menalm ksuamruhnn Dumav-ngm yum mlah dlkemuklkan uleh kldua—du: wan Dmak Dendlkwaan can pemhehan 5 a mum Res m sm flan spa lelah bersehqn bahawa saw beg plishk rum herlanda “TZ' (P2) yang man mkemuulun x. . sun on spa mnnugunlkan palekfl mm mu mum.) dln Imk benvxelem momnnduugknn -mm During m w dllnnml ow.» svs pm Pork D .. Malaya: rnailh lag? menugunakan lea! yang mguu. n ma: nmpul 5 a nu hemerman havang kes yum Imak hem:-31erz1mlah pun mpuxuskan dnlnm kes mane Pmncurolv/. mu won .4 um. (19931 1 cm 75, .1. mum Vmcanl N: J (um JCA) man mamuluskln swam ylnq bsnkul sm -numow/uzacxiruqvuun 10 mm. smm ...m.mm .. 5... m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm 5. mum pans!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-B52NCvC-41-02/2021

PLAINTIF KHOR BOON HONG DEFENDAN 1. ) OOI TSE BING 2. ) LD PLASTIC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Pinjaman duit –kaedah pinjaman sepertimana kehendak Defendan - leretan kad kredit ke mesin kad syarikat-syarikat Defendan yang tidak dinamakan sebagai pihak-pihak dalam kes – sama ada terdapat keperluan untuk lifting of corporate veil dalam kes ini - kontrak pinjaman wang adalah antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama walaupun secara lisan sahaja – sama ada membuat bayaran pinjaman kepada mana-mana orang lain ataupun pihak ketiga sama ada individu ataupun entiti atas kehendak seseorang peminjam akan membebaskan seorang penghutang dari tanggungjawab untuk memulangkan duit pinjaman ini - sama ada terdapat evasion dan wrongdoing oleh Defendan- nilai dokumen sezaman – konsep kredibiliti saksi – alasan dan pembelaan yang tidak diplidkan – penilaian keterangan saksi – ketiadaan bukti atau dokumentasi untuk menyangkal versi Plaintif – keterangan sokongan atas dakwaan yang dibuat– sama ada versi Defendan munasabah dan logik

10/01/2024

Puan Yong Leou Shin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0891055e-62fc-468d-b62b-3ad5ef708da5&Inline=true

10/01/2024 10:55:43 BA-B52NCvC-41-02/2021 Kand. 49 S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XgWRCPxijUa2KzrV73CNpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24-54-09/2022

PEMOHON DR. GEOFFREY ALAN WILLIAMS RESPONDEN 1. ) DR TIKFU GEE 2. ) MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA

PROFESSIONS: Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Malaysian Medical Council – Registered Medical Practitioner – Charge of infamous conduct – Charge dismissed under Regulation 31 of Medical Regulations 1974 – Complainant appealed against decision – Medical Act ss 29, 30 & 31

10/01/2024

YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d32f2a06-d884-458c-9330-55b359ff7df7&Inline=true

10/01/2024 11:56:50 WA-24-54-09/2022 Kand. 42 S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Biov04TYjEWTMFWzWf999w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—24—5l—09/2022 Kand. 42 1n/01/2n2L 11: DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGN MALAYA D1 KUALA LUMFUR DALAM NEGERI WILAVAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA lBAHAG\AN KUASA-KUASA KHA5) SAMAN PEMULA Nu WA»24-54-O9/2022 Dalam perkara mengenai Alum: 55A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahxamah 2012 Dan Dalam perkara mengenai seksyen an darn 31 Akla Ferubalan 1971 Dan Dalam perkara pevamvan 29 dan 31 Feraluran Pembavan 1914 Dan Dalam perkara kaadah 2, A, 5, 5 4, 5 7, 511 Slundwrly Orders For The Conduct 07 Inqumes Al lhe Pralmunary Vnvesugahon comm-nee Level And Al The couneu Lave! Amara Dr Geoflray Alan Williams (Passport No 5u253<577) Pevayu Dan 1. Dr 7'Ik1u Gee (No KP 130502477-5559) 2 Mews Perubalan Malaysxa Respandan—Respnnden sm an-mMTV.EwTMFwzwmw m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] This Is an appeal by me complainant. Dr Geoiirey Aian V\flHIams (‘the awelianz“) against ma decisinn of the Maiaysian Medical Council (“me Councii“) an 20"‘ June 21122 dismissing chavges oi allsgsd proiessranai misconduct Whlch the Council had xmugm against me 1- respondenl, Dr Trkiu Gee. The appenanr is Ihe campiarnani who alleged pmlsssionsl mnsoonducl was cummmed by the 1" respondent who Is a regrsuered medics! pracmroner w11h|ha Cnuncl [2] The dlsciphnary proceedings were brought under subsection 29|2Kb) or the Medical Act 1971 me An’) mad wgemer mm me Medical Regulanons I974.The1eis provided a right aiappeai by a person aggrieved againsi me decision onne counai diracuy iu me High own under Subseclmn 3111) uflhe Act. sm smturvrzwrmiwzvvmm .~.» “Nam 5.11.1 ...n..mm .. 1.... a navy 1... mn.u., mm: dnuumnl VI mum p-711:1 decvauea umecnwe (Tobin Mosupu v unnu- anun A Anar [2020] 7 cu 561) ANALYSIS AND DECISION [17] The pruvlsxon m quesnon ws Secmn 31 of the Act, u inflows, therefore‘ that me exac1 Scope 0! an apnea! will be determined by the wcrdmg ol Secmn 31 01 the Ac! The werumgs p! Sechnn 31 as 1! slood and apphcable m me Instant appeal \s as «oupws: (1) Any person who rs aggnavod by any order made In respecl olhrm by me Counml m [he sxelctse ofils drscrp/mary [urisdraton may appeal to me Hrgh cam, and me Hugh Conn may lheteupon. amnn, revevse or vary me crde( appealed agamsl or may gwe such dwechon m the malteras mmnks proper, me coal or me appeax shall be m Ihe discretion of me High Conn. 12) The deousian ol me High court upon such appeal she}! be final sm s~.wn4I'V:EwTMFwzwmm .~.» “Nam gm nmhnrwm p. p... m M, .. mp.m, mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! (3) The practice m relauan m any sucn appeal shaH be subuact Io me rules olocuns applicable In ma Hrgh Court: Proyrdeu that the Hrgn cam shall not nave power to hear any appeal agamstan order made under seclion so umess Home or such apnea! ms gryen wnhrn one manlh oune semce oflhe order rn ma prescnbed manner [1111 The dtscipflnaryjuivsdrct/on anhe Council rs conlerved by Subse n 2911) 111 me Am An persons regmarea under me Ac| are subject lame dlscrplinaryjurisdmhon subsemmn 29(2|oflI1e Act men provnies the follnwmg instances wnen the arse-plinary prisdmllun can b: sxsmsed by me Cauncfl aver any regtsleved person: (3) who nas been convicted In Malaysra or elsewhere :2! any affenw pumshable wnn impnsonmem (whether m H5916 only or in addman (a or rn luau at a fine)‘ (b) who has been guilty ol in/arnous conduct rn any pmfessranal respe .1 srn s~mn4I'V:EwTMrwzwmm .~,» “Nam s.n.r nmhnrwm .. HIGH a my r... nflmnlflly mum: flnuamnl VI mum war (c)whc has ob|amad regmramon by ham: or mwsrepresemalion. (d) who was not at me was nl ms regwstrallon em-uea (a be regwslered. or (5) who has mnoe been removed mm me regxstev a! medium practmanevs mamvained In any place outswde Ma\ays|a [191 Then comes‘ Sermon an arms Ac! wmch pm»/mes larlhe types ov punIshmen| me cannon us empoweved to impose in me eioerclse of us msciplinary wrisdicnorv (a) order (he name of such regmered poison be struck off from the Regmer. or ([1) order the name olsuch reg/snared person be suspended from the Regysvsr, or (c) order ms regrstenzd pelson 10 be repnmsnasm or sm suwmflvpzxmmrwzwmm .~,» “Nam smuw nmhnrwm .. HIGH m my .. mm.m, mum: flnuamnl VI mum pm ca) make any such order as araresam bul suspend the application Iheveal, subpm N: such sandman: a: Ihe Sauna! may Imnk m, for a penoa, or periods m me aggregate. not exceeding two years, and may, m any case, make such order as me Council thinks in mm reynrd Io Ihs payment ouhe costs omre Regrsrrar or or any complainant or onna raglslslsd person, and any costs awarded may be recovered as a own debt my Thus, by wine of seeuana 29 and an 01 me Aer, me cpunarl nas drserpunary junsarcnon ever persons registered under me A421, xna types or silualinns me arscrpxrnary jurrsdreupn rs exerersame, and me lype or punishmem that may be rrnpased on such persons Tne punishments are m me ipnn 01 orders and includes orders as to costs, [211 The cnucal words that come up lcr considerauon of W: Court are the words ‘any person who 45 aggnsved by an order made /17 respect of him by me Council In the exercise of Ms arscrpnnary runsurcmpm An “aggrieved person” under srn a~mn4I'V:EwTMrwzwmm .~,» “Naps s.n.r nmhnrwm rs. HIGH a my r... nnmnuuuy MIN: flnuamnl VI .nune war Subsection 31(1) oi me Act IS speiieo out cieany in piain and unambiguous language Such paison IS one (5) agains1 whom an order is made against mu person by lhs Council‘ and (17) the mar is made by the councii in the exercise of its disciplinary junsoumon [22] The orders that can he made by the Councii are those in Semen 30 or the ACI and. as shown above, are made agains| a person registered Ulldef the Act The exercise oi disciplinary iunsdiclion is against persons registered under the Act and no one eise Thaamers man could be made againsl such registered person aie (a) being struck out irom ins Register, or (o) bsmg suspended (mm me Register: or (c) being reprimanded, or (d) suspending [he application 0! (he order (3), lb) 0! (cl above. I7 made against sudi regisoereo person, subieci to conditions that the counui may mink tic ior a specified dura|ion [211 Aparl vrom me above. me oiner order exprassiy provided «or In Semen 30 VS an arderwilh vegavd Ia payment uf costs (i) is SIN a~mn4I'V:EwTMrwtwmm .~,» «mu. s.n.i ...n..mn be mad u vuny i... nflginlflly mum: flnuaviml VI .riuNa mi |a the Regislran (ii) to me complainant: or to me reglslaed niaaical pramllloner This would suggest mat a wmplainanl could be emllled ta appeal againsl an order cl oasis mane agalrlsl ms or In IVS la»/our since sucn cusls can be recoveved as a civil dam. lam max is nol an issue in «ms appeal [24] in me cimumslances, me appellam is no: a person aggrieved under Secllcn aim at the Act and lnerelore nas no night to appeal we declslml Io dlsmlsslhe charges agalrls|Ihe1" respondent There was nu owsrmade bylhe Council againsmim VI lhe exercise at me dlsci;:llnary,urlsaicuon or me council — me crl|ena |o be an aggrieved person under Subseclmn aim olme A/.-l The aisciplinary lurisdlclinn is only againsl persons regislereu unaei lhe Act. the appeal was |hevalme na| mnipelenl and was acoo gly dismissed. Amansal small enul slngn Judge High Court Kuala Lumpur Balsa 8" Decembar2023 em a~mn4I'V:EwTMrwzwmm .~,» “Nair s.n.i ...i..mn .. HIGH m vuny .. mn.u., mm: mm. VI .rluNa mi I29 Ihn Illaml Raw Neeko and Amaha Maxsava Bmlllamal Amum Messrs NEEKO Counsel of ms 1“ Rnsgondontl Aw Ee Va and Fazleeza Azh Messrs Chan Ban Eng a Cu Counlnl nf mo 2"" Rngouuom Jess-ca Ram Bmwam Messrs Kanesh Sundmm 5. Co .7 sm an-nn4W;EwTMFwzwmw Fr “um. snm nuuhnrwm be mad M mm :2. mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum p-um cases Mama to: 1) Aum Duni-I Sdn Bhd v wang Sal Fun a. 0:: [1995] 3 cm 455, 2) w-n s-gur Wm Embnng V H-run T-lb [zoos] 5 cm 14, 3) Dr Koay Cheng Boon v Mums Perubalan Malaysia 12012} A CLJ 445) 4) Much KGnAv Lnno Marlullng (M) Sdn Bhd: Rugmur of Tudo Marks (Imeresueu Party) [2015] 6 cu 167 5) Dana‘ Sari Anwav Ibrahim v PP[ZD10] 9 cu 525 (5) Dr Kozy Chang Boon v mm: Pnmbllan Mal: in [2012] A CLJ A45 7; Gum Boon Ann v Public Prosecutor [2016] 6 CLJ 547) 3) Tobin Mon-pa v Hulbn-Dxnynl Bnlla 5. Anal [2020] 7 CLJ 561) sm smvMw,EwTMFwzwmw m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [:1 The appeax m me mslant case was bmughl by way dran origmatmg summons pursuanr rd Order SSA ofme Rules Mcmm 2012. Tne eomp<arrram named mrnsew as the appeHanl cmng lhe regrsuered medwcal pmcmiansr agsrnsr whom drscrplrnary charges were drsmrssad as me 1" raspondam and ma councn as me 2» respondent In me cmgi ring summons nne appellant saughl for one rellel an order that the daemon 07 the Council be reversed and the 1‘ respondent be pumshed (or the aflegad rmscnrlduct under secupn so of me Act. [4] Al the eonrrnencamenn of the nesnng 0! «ms appeal‘ me caunen and me 1" respondent rarsed a prehmmary emaamn quesfloning \he competency of ma appeflanlr the wnrpxamanr to brmg me appeal as a “person aggflavea‘ wdnrn rna nraarrrrrg dv subseeucn 31m dune Act. u was argued that me appeuan s not a person aggrieved wnmn the meanmg onne sard supsecuon (hereby rendering lhe appem moumpelenl and IN: coun navrrrg no Jurisdxctxon In hear the appeal [51 On 27* July 2023. ansr oonsuiermg me wrillen subrnrssrons and neanng aH names on me ssue, I allowed me sm s~.m14I'V:EwTMFwzwmm .~.» “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. d... a M, r... mn.u., mm: dnunmnl VI mum war nvehmlnary cbieamn holdmg that the appeal ws inpompevem ind msmissed me same wnn ocsu. . For [51 ms judgment comams me reason for my decwsi avaidanoa or doubt one pmvvsuons appncabla in this appeal are those pnor nu ma amendment 0! me Au and me Msdn-.31 Regulamns 1974 THE BACKGROUND FACTS [7] The Council us a statutory body eslahhshsd under Seclmn 3 of me Medusa! Act and, among omens, Vs eentenea paweno exercisee»sc«phnary.unsdveuan nverreqwsteled medacax praclnuoners regrslered m me RegAsIst under me A51 Pan IV 0! the Act se|s out me mm Inarypmsdwclicn of the caunul. The oounen has {water to commence dwscxphnary pmeeeamgs aupulazeu under subsecuon 29(2) and impose any ol me snpulated punishments prescribed m Secnon 30 ov me Act {3} The junsmcllon Vs mvoxea on anegauens pr pmlessxonaf mxsoonducl by rsglslered memcal pracl ones emner by way al a complamt ur mlurmallon prawued xo lha Council Vn me insum A sm ssmA14I'V:EvnMFwzwmm .~.» “Nam smn ...n..mm be HIGH a M, .. .nm.n, mm: dnuumnl VI mum Wm! case me appeHanI lodged a oomplavnl on 16”’ November 2016 mm me caunen agalnsl amen penans cl 3 pnvala medical I1csp1Val.amongs|lhem‘ me 1“ respondent The complaml avcse (mm events sumwnding me Irealmem of: pahanlallhe naspnsu The oompxamn was «reared m me manner prewaea under regulauon 25 at me Memcal Regulanons 1974. A Prelimmary Vnveshgalmn Camrvnltee |“PIC“| was set up to Invastxgate me eampmxnl me me mqwed mu: me allegalion and communicated wnn both me mmmamam une appenanu and me :1 respanaenn in me manner se| out in sun-regulauon 2911) a! me Memcal Regmalmns 1974 ms Included taking of wnllen statements and documentary ewdence vrwn me eompramant. [9] The we found sumc-em gmunds to euppon me allegation of prmessuansx m|scom1uc| made agamst me 1- respondent and recommended that mere be an mqwy Inla me matter by me Councfl In Ihe Instant case, me councu dectded \o hold an mqulry on the charges me councn framed agamsl lhe 1!‘ respondent after cunswderahcn 0! ma mares eumnmea by me PIC under smwegunanon 31(2) 01 me Mammal Regmanons 1974. AI me close of me Inqmry‘ me Council found (hat no case had been made out agams| \he plactmoner‘ directed s sm s~mn4I'V:EwTMFwzwmm .~.» “Nam s.nn ...n..mn .. HIGH e M, .. mm.n, mm: dnuamnl VI mum pm that lna charges be dlsmissed and inlolmed the 1" raapprlcanl accorcmgly pl its declslnn The plwvel lo dlsmlss me marge: is provlded by Sub-regulallan 3115; ol me Medlcal Regulallorls 1974 whlch provme as follows: ll at me close or me mqulryr the councll finds that no case has bean made oul agarnsl me pracmlprrer i\ shall dlrealhal the charge be dlsmlsssd and shall lnform me pracmuoner accoldlngly no] There ls no prevuslan ln me Medical Regulallons 1974 requlnng me Oourlcll (0 lnlarrn ma onmplalnanl alme Cauncll‘s decis-on Nevertheless‘ ma mmplalrlanl was Worrned byway pl a leuer or me deClSl0H by ma cpuncrl dlsmlsslng the charges agalnsl ma 1“ respanaenl nissallsled, with the declslorl, the appellarrl Ned lnrs appeal under Secllon am l ollhe Medical Ad 1971 As slalcu above, l nac heard and allpwap me pvellmlrlary oblecnon hylhe Councll and lhe 1*‘ respondent. As a result of my declslcrl allowlng ma prellmlnary ablecliun. ma appaal was darnlssea as lnrs calm had no luvlsrdlctlurl up near me merits cl |he anneal srn s~mn4I'V:EwTMFwtwmm .~.» «ma a.n.l luvlhnrwlll a. p... a Mr, .. .nnn.u., mm: dnuavlml VI arlurm vtmxl THE ISSUE [11] The quesllcrl ln ms appeal was wnelner a mmplalnanl ls a ‘person -ggnevea" undev suesectlon 31(1) ol lne An by me declslorl cl me cpuncll dlsmlsslng lne charges ol allegea pmlsesiunal misconduct premlsed on a eemplalnl made by the complement against a reglslered rrledlcsl praclmaner [I2] mus, what is lequlred to answermlsquesllon VS me lme corlslmclion of me DNWSIOH le Sscllon 31(1) of the Act wncemlng pompelency lo appeal agalrlsl a aeclslon ol lne Ccurlcll made In me elerclse of ns disclplmary lurlsdlclicrl. THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES on THE RIGHT TO APPEAL [13] It IS elementary and |rlIe lawlhal an appeal lsa uealure cl slalule. The calms cannol create lne ngm cl appeal where none EXISI and or lake away |he nghl of appeal mal IS conferred by slelula and unless an aggrieved pany can bring nunsellwllmn me Ierms cl me slallflory pmvlsiun enanllng him up appeal, no appeal would (see Alnn Dunla Sdn Bhd v Wong sal Fan 3. on [I995] 3 CLJ Ass; wan Slglr Wln Embong v Hlnm Tull: 7 am an-m14I'V:EwTMFwzwmlm » “Nair Sam! ...n.mn .. UIQG w my me nflmnnllly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl aFluNa Wm! [2005] 5 CLJ 14: and Dr Kozy clung Boon v Mull]: Pombmn Maluym [am] 4 cm 445) [14] A more meant decwswon setting out the prInc4p\es 15 ms decnsmn olme Fadsral Courl m Mnrck KsnAv Lnno Marknllng 0.1) San arm; Registrar of Trade Marks (lnlelesled Party) [2018] 6 Cu 167 where A was said as foflaws u is we man me ngm ol appeax vs a creature a! statute’ “umess an aggrieved party can bnng nimsawwumn me |erms at a svamlory prowsmn enabhng mm up appear no appea\ hes“ (Aulo Duma sun Bhd V Wang SaiFarl & or: [1995] 2 MLJ 549 at 553; unwass a statute so pmwdes‘ (here is no inhevem ngm c! appeal (KM/asmgsrn V mm: Prosecutor [1973] 2 MLJ 243 at 244) Statutes conlerrmg, reslncling, or denying me right cl appeax reflecl Vsguslalwe pohql chances m delermmlng the number of «mes a Mlganl may require me samequesuon in be decided‘ and the point al wmcn proceedings should be oansmered nnan (Kempel Remsulance Ca V Minister of Finance and amarsnasa} 3 LRC 63: at 642‘ vanay aaal Co- r am smMI'V:EvnMFwzwmm .~.» “Nam gm.‘ nmhnrwm be HIGH a M, .. .mpn.u., mm: dnuumnl VI mum pm Operative Ltd v Farm credrrcarp (200215 J No A99 at [45], PV P[2002] 1 IR 219). [15] The approach In delsrmme whelher were is a ngm or appea\ was slated m me Vauowmg words by the Fedzra\ Coun In halo‘ sun Anwar Ibrahim v PP [2010] 9 cu 625: [18] u should be slated ar me outset |haL zppea\ 15 a creature cl sIalu|e Therefore, whether mere rs a ngm at apnea‘ or umerwrse in a given case wwll be governed by me maven! sva|u|: ms RELEVANT PRINCIFLES on IMERPRETATION [1 5] Since the quesuon irwmves me construction at smmory pravxilonar I kept in mind the vauawmg lnle pnncmles at soaxumry imsrprexanron (a) Cams mus| use me hlaral rule where a clear meamng uf a slalulz wIl\ allow rx‘ Ls. interpret me svalme lflerally, acoordrng to as ordinary plam meanmg m the event ollhe words :11 me scams bemg precrse and unammguous in 9 sm swmmzmwmwmm .~.» “Nam smnx nmhnrwm .. HIGH m M, r... mrn.u., mm: dnuumnl VI mum p-ma! lhamselves, ll ls only lust necessary la expound lhosa words in |helr natural and ordlflfify serlsa. IV the words employed ave nol clean men lne Conn may adopt the purposlve approach in Carlslrulrlg the meaning 01 me welds used (Dr Kuly Chlrlg Boon V Mljllt Fomhnun Malaysia [2012] 4 CL! 445) la) The duly of ma cd-m ls llmllzd lo lnlerprellng lha wmds used by me Leglslalure and lo give effect to me wmds used by ll A com should not read wdms ink) an Act cl Parliament unlzss mere ls clear reason lor it lnund wllhln lne Acl llsell. [Gm Boon Ann v Public Prosecutor (201515 cu 647) (C) The slalute Should be oonsvued as a whole and llhewords used m a sacuan -nusl be glven their plalrl grammallcal meanlng It ls nol ma pmvlnoe do |he COUI1 lo add or subtract any word ullirnalely, an lnlerprelalmn whlch would advarlca (he oblecl and purpose of the pwvlsion in quesllon Is the prime mrlsxierallon of Me nouns, so as In glve full meanlrlg and ellecl to n lrl the achlevemenna me sm smMI'V:EvnMFwzwmm .~.» “Nair Smnl ...nwul a. HIGH a vuny .. mn.u., mm: dnuuvlml VI .m«a vtmxl

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-B53-15-11/2020

PLAINTIF TYE AH TE DEFENDAN YAP KONG HENG TRADING & TRANSPORT SDN BHD

sama ada terdapat pencerobohan yang dilakukan oleh Defendan ke atas tanah yang diberikan pajakan (lease) kepada Plaintif - sekiranya ada sama ada Plaintif boleh dipampaskan dengan ganti rugi termasuk ganti rugi teladan.

10/01/2024

Puan Rafiqha Hanim binti Mohd Rosli

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6305d7a1-9c7a-48df-9984-08bb358e7187&Inline=true

10/01/2024 16:33:12 BA-B53-15-11/2020 Kand. 111 S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N odcFY3qc30iZhAi7NY5xhw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal aA—353—15—11/2020 Kand. 111 12/01/20:: 15:33-11 mum ummun sE:vEN nl mm mm ANVARA we AH rs (No K/P: 430329471-5015) rmmr am up mm; was rmoms z. mwsvom sw sun we swam 797099-A1 uarsuum Auggu afiugmmum SELEPAS pznancnum pang»: A. PENDAHULUAN » m. mum. sunlu myuxn am pm nmnaan lamadip ksputusun Mlnkamah In‘ my man mnamn pm: Va u...mn.. 201: Ah: mum... . , pmak Deienflnn Man menyu mm. m.r.m.>. Tlngg\ smn Alnm tnmldxn ketehmman teuumun Iersebul ma mennw-dknn RM 115 smno ulna sanarvw my ear: nu aomuou mum Dinning! mm» mm mm balum: domain kc: msnalkull mm m dalam Away: 5: men.» as x..,a.r..mn.y. Mnhklmlh 2012 (Roe 2012) a. KERYAS4(Egfl§ Mug mm ssrmul sAKsI 2 Farbuzlrnn unluk kg: VI! man barman pm 4.2202: din 5.9202: yang mehbnlkin kclhrkemx kaun din uumm yung talibak upon! m bawah N uacFv:qc:I/mznmuvfixnw um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm mm mm: v-nym hlul Yarlkh (Lump un) |<mm.m._ Pw—I Fm Alman am Alhnri 75 «9 ma ww—2 Sadud Bin Mohammad 4.9 ma (S:ks\ yanfi |)|sIDVn:7 :w.: Tye Ah In 7: 5.9 21:23 uw»1 Yap Kong Ham] 77 ‘ 5 a ma Llmulvlrl nuxumn 51 Sunnrm sum Dahsnflun 12 um." PI 2 ' ’ ’ 6: Hum: Dakumnn yum: Dlnnrnmhu . an-gm. a u mm. Dukuman vmw DIDarsuu|w— a.mm. c an r.m+m. a. man 211 bu ... an-mu an um... Plllnlll an mu. um mmm 75 Smauv s.m...m Plndlln Batman: :4 Vknun Dukuman Ylmhnnnn yum: D\»uvIu|ulu\ . amqm. a as Hmmn Dnkumen Ynmhllmn yum: yum Dwveuetulm — a.m-mun c a7 smm sum m.m.m. nu-am." mo mu. Kalorangln mm mm. » and: A a 2:125 ‘ 101 Nm: x mm unmk mm. N am 5 2 ma c. : Sean nngkunya. :1. m . n Lmneqnnfl Delmul uemunun um swsmaoav/vzuceurww mm: Jahahn Pamulznan Nsnen SeIlHUBHIllIHil\IhdIKfi7W3im!\el1(ID,HlflIlI5l'VFi7ISlll19l\Bll|B7I‘$eHVIIW Tengih bvukunn mam Ingguvin 4 55 may (dlrujuk unugm Tlnlh Phmm lnnnhuh yang mar. dxlulunkan mm. svumm mm Mm. pumnian big! tzmpuh m ns,2nu7 mm. hmm ms lably m. . ylng dlnyntxkln mm um um... Dekumnn V-nu nu»-n-nu]-.1 a.v-uni... a. sm aacivlqcanxznnwuvaxrm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! mun. sum: 207 am my guys mmammw. mm. em Fa]: mm m. sslikalman m.«.u.:, mm, mm wnlrlu /An, mm zomm won: my km’ mpmzw Canlplllmllh my, wall p.mp:.mn/mm. ¢.n.m. Psmumnnn mm bamwa Dofsnden ads ma/otak m komieman ranmmk an. Vaflcv-Ina :1 mm rm. mm PM am um- am am tvuda -yum eamnr-mmmnun dcrrgan struktuh xbulvzur lam’ V Em om ksllu MM ma sum: 23, my say: mskmdkan on-um Pundokwwlwlr swan mm Btu nr bmun am Dlngurun ylny mm]-dr Iampnf Imgvzm m. sallll saru kn sum.» mmmy. ‘ Scam! 23» vwv Ya mu. ma temuaauk ax mm salah mu ac: Tlnwltbnggllbngiplkoqhvdkiql mg, rncfilhskldn heoderaan-kenderaan am meam-mealn beau Ion mar, mmmr, mm dun /IFIHIM mambunlklln wmvnq Umqnn mervnsunalwn ma: mudan Ivmakar dan mam/mum x-mam.’ mm-:.n my mwgvan molaflvvul unuangwmm. 0901/7 .- am am ‘ Okay Arman suyulalv am Fan yang sly: nkun mdangkun mm em an wish am.” ksnavruun-ksndaman. and-HP! xtruaum my damn yanv kapunyam Dslandun mm mam :14 um ulvwld-n Pwv Tenetik an Dc? m Vunneml-mun am buhn my mum um»:-an pm. Kama, -am» Enak Flrz am mm m M: lwsmarv to Irvxwurmy quunan nlnnfl Klrlnu Endk F111 mm Plmull perm‘ 1.. mm sm ua:Fv:I-qnamznmmvfixwn «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! wwv Ya Dom! ram mmummu sun! -tlfllwn ldunn yung mlmmukan am Mr Ty: Ah To klwuun yum] mnuusm pm»: «ma. n-nu . h,mlA1udnyI,p»hIk Dalandnn an w, mg m.m.mn ficn-Inn‘ m. 1.1 kawunrvyn mam Makaudnyn‘ Knwasen Mr rye mm mm dnlelakkm mm drhtnkkln m«m— mam, lfillmnorvforn om Munglkumauan Plumnflnh km’) pwn vn bowl om Dan max name!!! um um max, par-aw: Whzk Pommnan Isvmawk Enctk Flux ndlkP'”‘\h undmflyi ;=-rvv mmbv-t psnyumilhn, mslluv sum .4. .I1Iukn1r-sltmklury-ng datmtalmn tvmlpat m dllam ram mm klpmvylnn puma." may am my annganng/./.., mm FW1 om. mu say! hm mamlflg uyl nankpunm «mm m, mm membull nmlhn m lnpnngnrv »., nknyflerhubk mm says puny: kmynmnrl mm, :47 mm ndum yang Am Aanma mum pemogang umaaaw. mu Mm am. In beam am an, End!‘ dllam m Am. uyl pm mu: ulurnng mangmygap /nrHnn turubut dmtnkhn m datum hawlnrv p-mm MI Tyu an Ts. ‘ om okay Says manlluk mad: men»: gan-nu nvmlv Say: trdlk um msmmk mm. umul dun mm (nmguk muk: Hum 105. mm. A ms mm. mu-pa vnmbu tweak my dvksmuk-km um pmk mmm Kumu, Endk Far:/WV m Zgumbarm mm .1muI11755 15.5“:-umun pm klfanngln vwu mi mm .1 nus, Mlhkamlh bclpanuannanin-hhpeluhnmwatnldipnlpam>evaI>oh|ny|ngd\ksmu)<akIn um pam Dukndan knnm unnh Pmmngnehul. an xzmuuam ms: mnmr mg .2 sm aa:Fv:I-qnnmznmmvaxrm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 15 s.x. -my.‘ Mnhknmnh um mnlnhn mm»g.n m voce En. Snlumn am Munmmm ma menmllun mum: Jumukur TI/uh (Pwm (elm m-ny-um mm rm-pm wnmvcboh-n wwakm boiau bevuml pumm- haiku mlmbval Vawalzn um 61 um um mm o-n-um a ... um. danfiln phi mubdumiurl banuwlmduplt blbuvlpl um. um: knmznlylm dilatnkkzn m nlu mun yang muemlmh menu: nleh ' nu Dflendln »<=¢...ng.n am. my m.mp.n Ini mm. nnem aw haw: PC! M 1u< E7 ‘ /lu mmanya yum dvlukrs nllh mm PW2 y. .:u svmul say! rm PC1 Dan sinus; Encvkpcrgi surwy ar (Inch, .p. ynng Em Dm nuvuzm PW!’ s-ya mmpu ..1. ubm, WI-lorlplmna, kcnlonn maclm M 1.’. Pm. Dan mm /oddan mm rm dl dmam k. nan mm mm m VW2 Am D-mdld .m Iuwunn 2 P..a.xAx.mm. 2 P01 PatikA Iawasarv 2 Okay Dan bum» Ennk Dm n.mm ma/was pat: mu PW2 Lab/h kurang 2 nan dlmudu mm 5. - my name: san- UII) mm£EmJ n s.4.n,mny.. Pwa ylng memplkln mm dawn mnmlzn um man memmm mgr-ngln rnelalui vavnyqvan mks: ma dnmrenuhkan m aanas. Manflann oleh mmmm vim: berlauluh. Kabaulwan wva mum msrmpurm swim at bawah: :) balm pemenm lesen yann in mi man my flboembch Iengbun n) helm: mm mm itsnln Blyurln aewun uasmv Mun, a) many: plnoevnbunnn clan umnaan xa ah: Izmzh mu mmnummmn; d) Jabitzm Fumnanan um. mslulusknn Imluk mflmulmmn moan p.,.m mu. pununvevmh perlfiguniln sshmflfialnhun ms; :3 sm aacivlqcanxznnwuvaxrm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! -7 balm: Mun mnnuxmml qlmbnvqalmll ylnn m.m.,..mn penuembahlnkc Ilulxnnh lnrxebulnleh up Kano Hem Tnrflng .5 Ymnwan Sam am pm. mm. mm gm;-um.» yum dmyahkln ax nu. ma lkzun Dnkuvnon mu nnpmmuuu sum»... 3‘ 1; mm mm bua| I-noun huh: Isprm yuvg omkm We Sn Damamalu mu Nonoanma plda wauszme, Dumm-vl mm No 002335/11 pm osm 2911‘ an svl Damansnm nepm Nn.m721€/1 a Dada 15.112015‘ w) new... lash out sum up-an Jnhalan Pnmumnln mswunw Demasmbnhan mam; ya) haflau Ida msmuhun Tetunn cmnu su W: a. Ca msnumm luvs! I:-nar1kh17 10 we made V99 my we mm a mnsum San am ‘mangsnaw pumeruhnhinuhluavluna yang dmylukin m m. mm mm. mm" my nupmmm amgm. a‘ den at new ma menuaruhl-an Imuan FmIyI\ Grim! 5 Co mmmm main man berlznkh 2o.w.2n2u kepafla Yap Kong Hm Tridmg a tampon $dn End bukenaan pmmovwulun Inrubut Aahlgmmmu my dmyninkzn as m.I.91-83 um... Dakumln V.IngD Irlnujulfilhuyllnfi 1!. Dalam pm mu v-nu um: Mlhkamah M. mm: mm. m. mnl-n bum uhh pogunm Dalemlln. vwa ex.» sen-II mmcen m=m.u..mm mm. mink Defendln mm memhufl venmmbomn ke ans rmmuh mm-A, mesklpun bnhau mm pemannm Vnscn y-nu n ml man my mmm ievsebul Kgtevaman helm man «mm uepenm bawlh um. Er-cvk Ty!‘ says codanyhrv tam A<9P9¢s Ermk rye oanawa mnaoi‘ ks»-myaan Dahndan ltnstik m Jul! sampmn at suballn kuvan PIlIkA av «cum Vulr gm." mu-Iv tarsvhut Sum/u mm. mm splu/ufi D: IunrpuIIkA Kawnnrv 2, ama.:.n knnnrv yunaarl man, m Iunrsvmpadln rm rvw: Plan, semis: say! meflalmbn gambarqamblr Ion tun-amu finn- n sw uacFv:Iqc:wxznAnMv5xrm «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm T m,..g. cum: .4. sum '1/an kaluar Mia av mans adslslv m audul kin am my man, can lalan Kama! m mans Defemian Man mendmksn um pacer parw mlpar-ng av mu unluklon mm muuk. r-um 19 Sehubunnln rm, Dvrdnsnkln x ngun wwa W, M-hkumnh am Mrplndlnnln unyl mm. manouku unluk munhukuknn belmu mm pemlgllvu lenan my sun but hlvlanlh taemebul dun Ievdnpll ammyn Dtnoembchnn yum dumm an-an Duiendnn kn ms mun PLIMM my fliegrvbontersebul. 20 Mlhknnmh inuuan nzhhltpnda mm." pegulm Deiendln my menynhk-n mm Defunflnn mnununmn mun yang Ienetnkm Jllan Mount: so I314‘ Blndav Sn Damamara mu 2, Muklu Surw sum n nun Pmnmg, Nugln sehniorylrlu mam bukamlh man yurvg dbcombnn lnuhul 21 mummamm Inauma,DelsM1anlu§ImunyI|akInbihawabelmumnn msmuhcn Imluk mum-naan Iznan a» Jilin Men-m so 13/4. Barmu Sn Damaniari wu 9,MukIm Sungul am‘ D...» Plhhng Negev Sehnuor ammo: Pen .n..m.. nun mam mmm.r. .n.c.n.n me: II pan. sun: .u..n= mm hDn=lIhP:1n\InfibeIIlnkM)1fl32021yBVIiMas\IEH\YI(i mervuldumkln hnhawn Pammnonan Leaen Delendnn nun dltulak pau- Navember zmv, sehuallnana yani awjuk an M. 1:: lluun Dokum-n vu-n nxw-emu: Buhlulln a. 22 Mnhknmnh mi man telnh memn pad: wows may s.mum.n- my dimmuknn nbh pemm mam aw hunt a; Jalnn Mnranh su 13/4, Eindlv sn mmmm NU a, mum sum: Eulnn‘ mm» realm Nag-n s-m-aw ylng memmlukknn mm unllv my kannrmyl aw. nhh Dflandnn mu mun lervehul Iarlelak mm can «am mm mm kapld: mm. 23 Sahubumnn denim: alpalin m alas, Mankamah wan mnuapau bahawn pmax Deiendan mun mlnaevuhoh um m-nggun. pl 1 Huh Phmnl .1. Kompinmon| w. mm sunp-n Sungm am. Szllngnr mg.» dun Is sw uacFv:Iqc:wxznAnMv5xrm «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm nlelwgunzkan um mm y-rm Demand: 3 a... suhigmnunl ylng mnylhknn dxlum m .1»: lklun Dnkuman my Dlpnnvmjm an.-gun a 24 Mlhkimah - ma berselmu dervgm nu]: an [asylum Phmm ynng .m..n.uum mm malulul uambavalmhirynw dumb! Med: vrmuem mu. man an xurvryyanu dflaksanakan ohh PW2 mm mm» nu... ylng mu mummjukk-n mm lerdapll mm ma m mu sun Isvdlval kendarnn sepenz mnlman mum um-man yang mum m sum up menomm bchnwa Iemlvflvlnmmbulmn .1. -n Flmrmnanebut 25 Sellvls dcngln .1.p.un m am, mmmn mu wm¢.ng.n h-mm pm Flu I51 mun n\¢mbuk\\knn xix: wmbanqan kabaranukaharl [helmet or prubamlvfrn) mam ma-an Denuemburun nuvhku an «mu rmuu yunn mcerabum telsebm mm ws.m..m pm musaum-s Laws on Euauun mg 4;: gfiafiugggu gm my memherlun dafilwm gem:-mmzhun muspmy mum m hawnh A . a mu: mm m.,:,». . ,. ... . lo; lwnlhnu Ma Ma; dam 1 u M A point! vrupawey upon am g h: wmrwiully ml; /1”. VIII .1, min 07 mm mvr H (V mm pmumo/u..»«Mm,,.,;.=..,.,.n..,‘..=.u.,,.1:m:...y. ovIi¢x!m)1urry1)|Ar|gp:rmawnvlyflmdrutlunvmrgfulotalex Mmcmlv/WWI uwazm N/ue;1IlI.whInganlIarlrvlI:»Lfhe mm. m,7mo.w.:Wrmmwwuw wiumlrmmln [M uIIA'PlAtlO/AIVMl’!!V(W¢’Kd1l{’fl17‘ElFfl/£’I4P9’Vfl7W/hfV , mm m mmm In any W... WEN ...».m. Ivhrrh hm hem ...n.mm.,m;......w.zm.4,.,.m mmuma " 25 Muhkzmlh m jug: mevujuk pad: Ken mguegumu v. uumsnwsu mm kevmus-n FEDERAL coum xuau Luuruk. my : um ylng mmpunyax mm my um: 16 sw uacFv:Iqc:ImznAnMv5x»w mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm «mu us my mm nmmueoem a. hnwnh 1 n. law has .z..,~y;,,.u DIM lb: riyvl ../M .m4...: 0... hulumt mar 1: w.,.m ». ., M. lhzexclmnvr I15! .; M: Wilma above 1):: 1111/01: vi/‘M: land 1‘hcr-'fiJrr. lhe app!’/uni Iuzdm mm rvxhua mcmach mm 1». .m,,.... after 2: unlen .,,»..aw.::.m.m z r n. W W. wtlh .. wrhuw bvvwldgr a/M: Wolrumn and mmmu, ha WII ..m..,.a:. ... law 1» me rrupau [mm m,...;. ...4 land nf hu ntrzhbaur andvvaxduly bound m n-Move 0.... "A: W! Aw: mm, m ».. in: on man Va m...:...m..:.,,,.m ....m.m by Ahv awlrv on» aamm an at mm .., m mu cm 1». .m..v..a Mm 91m: to! W Whit’! Irupmu u .o......m..u.mu:.m.mr.(..1.>.,...,.‘..c....bm..;mam 1». mm u/lhc m,...u ,........: ...,...um...:...g mm .».. mm o/III: mm naaamm ban 1. .m,... aw. ... nrwawntrrnmamawnlht r.».:.....4..».u.....nm..:..m. ;..4.m.u..~ '4. In mm, ... .. ..m..: 1»... Mn H mm .. mallet u/. Irw/arauo/In-spar: 10 um VM ,.,..n..... ,,,...., .7. mm, mn n. ..mum~¢...;.,.,.m..r 27 Eumuhurlg dsngln mu mu. yang p-mu xflmcavakzn pula. Mahkaman W bemnndnnnxn lhemlndangknn mmu p.mmunn.n mlka Mankamll belch membeviun mu mm selavas am... a-am. mum kg: :_m ggagmgnqu afigugg v. ssusucnsn cmmrs sou sun mtg u.au5L:.L1.yn-y mcmuluiknn sewn aw um: um m cm 1» Amen»! 11/ msamaa A Day I'M Evrrydny mxpmx n u nu. that Ivtxpan m Vamlu anmnnbk W 1: wr/how vvuulmnenl 0/any p~»/ mmglmu .1 9V @ In m cm: M :7 sm aa:Fv:I-qnnmznmmvaxrm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 1 11 1 1111111111. DuamvlanaIA:n1mnu 1-1 111 1111111 11111 1111111 1 1111111 1111. 111171:.111.1111111c 11111111111111: :zmm.uu Mmmmm 1 11 11 1111111111111 @115“ nun 11 M11 11.£{1111......1.m,1,1mm E11 1.11% 1111111111111 111,«1.1111.11.111 1111111111111 1111111111 a/1.1111111111111111 1111111 111111 111111 111 1.1 11111111 11111 111111 1111 11.111111111111111 1111 1/11.. 11111111111 11.1 111111n1111111.11111111u..11111>1,w1111w.1111111 ~ 1111 An)’ M1111 1111111; 111111111 11111 1111111111 111111111 W111111111111111111111111 r11d11v11111b11n1 uwnmh 11-11 11111.1 11 11111 1111111111111 111 1111/ rrurau 11.111. 111. 11% 1 s 11 v 1111... 11 111111121111: 11111: 113, [Mm] 1 Mu 2:. /211111; 12 cu 1:7 25 111111 1111111 111111 1 11111 - 1111 11111111 11 1111111111 11111: 111111 1111111; 1111111111111 11 1; 1111111111 1111 111111111 1111 1111-1 -111 1111111 1111111 1 11111111 11 1111 1u.re1141111 1111111111 1111111111111 1111 111.1 m 1111 111 M 111. 11:12-vse111 1111 11. 111111111 1.111111111111111 1.1111111.11111111111111. n1/11111111.11111111111111 11. 1.111 1 1111111./1111111111111 11.1 1111 111.111.111.11 -11111111 11. 1111.1 1. 11. 3111111 11111111 11. 1111111111111 1111 1411111111 1111111111111. 111111 1111111 11 111111 11111-5» 11 11111 1111 11.111, 1111111 1171111111 11111111 ~ 11:} 11/1». 1111 11111111 1111 r11111117:I1111111 111 damaxu/W 111111-1111111<:.r1z11:ano11111v111111111111111111-111111/111.. 11111111 2111111 111111111 29:: 1111/11 .1111 111111.1,..11111 /wwv 111 (Mam Q; 1; 21111111 111 1.11. 11115121 1111111.. 1111111111111 19911 11 313.1111. :21 1111111111111. 1111 .11 111111.111 11111.11; 11 11111 1111111111 ~11 1 11111111 1; 11111111, 1/1111 11111111 1111111 111 11111111 111 11 1111111111 1: :111 111mq1:n1z1.111111s11.11 “Nair 1.11.1 1..11.11111 1. 11.11 11 1.111 1.. 11111.111 11111. 1.11.1.1”. .111111c 1111.1 rzcauo .......-ml ntunngu m. {M mm xuirrudmyamnl Ian 1/1». nap-an hm mm lhr Wm. actual map. A.- ... ..m:..m mm mm III! mm m wnlloumpoumr mm/or hu 1.», Who: 1»: mam: hm ma. an U//bu claimant’: rm :4.‘ mum ., mum mm byway 2/do-agu ma ummmummmmupalaxarlmlm wnmm do/«darn cynically fimpwd: vh: mm 9/(M claimant In 1». ram: mm m. ab/m a/mm a M. by bu unlawful mm udnwhry MW my n. mwdrd ll rs. mupau 1; WWW» aggmvaltng c:n:n-uinnca wm do rm aim in award n/Lranpbry damagn. Ila ganzmt damag! may 5: trzwair-1 [411 ThID:[mda~dodnoIdrnyvMaLLo/Huparlbwmguui mu m. bum mlenlalwn 9/ mmaaw M4 714! bar: ulnbhlhtd 1». rvltknn .....:.a Man /la mum and ~m2.m. meum; )0 new ma! 1», mid Imam u. mp Ibcmcmaeflmnl n.mm,».. n.;.m.«.,..:,..,.u..:,...n.,.,.. .:,....m M...» Illlzbm mm mJu!yZWJIM- Dekndamwm /mnrl rnzvuachmg 9.. mg laid mm mm M: tvldum‘ ». Cull/154) um Ihr u./mam had bvwkdzt DIIM nollu af mm Wdr Ihr 1-:..m./r. mm am: :2 Mm-dv 2m Tahn: AhuU1mcvMldcmm.tnIhr('mu1Ixglbzvfitwthaulu Dafzndanr nclq/wxpaubcztnon Iht Human mu m :1 Alauhpg :2 vI!J .\II.1uw31I 211:: ms am} Ikrr/anlhtulmunldulmbyrha flu1vul[l1 m X wsaruz = kM1,.m',ooaau hum 1». phnlayuplr .m,;.,..: and ». rudemx 0/ IM Plan-110'; mmm u.m:,.»mu...m.... war::vAd:n¢:1aflr1A1J¢L‘l NI part ojme mm" In aarymg Allfl thew «aw!-4: H: a quarryopnmmr /44; Th: Cauilflndx me amount D[RM5Dfl0fl0 ,2. day .. muwlablrl Aahng mm the rtwuvdtmman u/the mm 0/um;-4 :9 sm mnrvaqnammnmsn... «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! n/Ihr:aIdh»ntbylh<D<frndauandyIsrnzhavlIy¢:a::ilAvui wmmllwmaurldllruwcammumuwntdwflkm dqrvrvadnft/I m 2-» hlw Council In yma ga_yu£;gg {M51 1 mz 715, .1: um and mu; :luhnm1Id:1.xIvllawI“. -17.. waruwmwm ngfoedany aauallon bybcvngdtprtvuuiq/Ihcruca/hupvuperhy Bu wnfir m. umpvlpyclplt he L. mmhd .. ruwvo .. wammb/: rm//9' IA: want an Gfhlvpmpnny .5, 0|: »..,..4.... a...:.z, the Dupwur may ml lwvr devlvudmy mm mm 1»... lhe ... .>;».p...,.my Bulwnckrlhautrpnncaaltku obllgtdlopuy arravnable ..m;m». Issewkfchht havmjwtd m,»m,u ......,a nu! A: Maruckrtud m m«.u.w» wmptmmam or 4-rclulwfy m..,..........r, nmmbtnvy akmuu afbalh“ /451 Hvwrwv, M m. rvldtmv .n.»:q..n. 9 Iwlcfizr mg mmm. an an nfllaiv ..,u...,m .;,...m the Defendant. m Calm u 0/ VM vim man an »./mm Mmfzuuld haw bun wuzhl by m: prmpy mrlk-r am! mar nlluwtrg M. m ,./ 1,...“ n. mnllnu M than aytar Iv/1 .. 1.-mum [hm up Humnflnnm ..m,m an /au mm M: om Lt o/VA: view my 1;. Plulniw/iztlrdru flu nu Irv iclemumng mg nmmmt la .2 awrmird, .5. Cmtlzvlluwl ».. during!»/urlrupw) baudlmlht full»-ting eulculalmn Immoox 375 day: — mumamaa mmma an numa Jim ,5» Julian 1.: mm,-at: — mm we on Far mu r¢a.vmI lhv amaum mmsao no [N Alarnagu/:7 um, mm mm :9 (e) 0/sm.-M.-m of Claim /:51 1» claim Fmlflflflflafl an 1.. Bwldfrnzv/WallAI17z am; 1» (‘mm 9/011 M mm 1». mm Alon .u/.1: wuhlrt dz mu a/dandy: :lnc4 n .»,..m.. n n. placv IM ..,;y.m4 gm, »..,.»u..». .14 gI)Io:Irm}vzdm1b«n m..,..m.am:: Mldmt m darzrl n=,m,rm»=wpm Th: Court a nlmaflm wrw M ,/ m. p/tlmnfl wuhu m may a /GM! avulmd lilo: 2n sm mnrvaqnammnmsn... «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Barium: denim pemm msebm 1.4.1. dlhmpmun mm pvhn buwaun p-mm nnngqunuln um. um-om yang mummy. dun um um min 4. kn Pnmulznnn mg." Salangnr s.n.;.mun. mg dmynvnkan mm m.I. Mn Ikmn Dohlnun mg Dlparunujul Bahamin a. Enyuvan p5lIm| untuk kegunaan um lelsahm mun pun duuukin clan Fllmhf um-um um um ma Iehlmgn (shun znzw sshugunmnnl ynng n damn nu. 21.45 Kknun Dnkumcn Vnnu nlwnmun a-mm. 1JlhunDnkumnn'Yiml>IMnVann Ddpuululnl Blhlnlln a. Dnlunflln mm. sebuin syankn yum mpommnm. m hm». ImdIng- Imdnnu Mnlnyxln dungun mnnjlllnkun parmagnn mum; and Tlunsuaflabon Sslwcsaylrw mum manglkm dnkwun mum pldlnknurbuhn Mpumbir am. pm Dnianrlln .1.../mu pukan: alzu span Dliendun man mum-m can muweveboh um mmk Pl nmmp. x-nau...n F\lmI1Y(n\I . Inukzn mx.-um image! um yang dlaembohi mm Flllnlil Iehh mendnkm mm Dennelnbnlun nluh Delundin mun dlnnln munumn pagir temps-inn mm. = nnf dengln mlmzkkan mu(uIIuvL nnumenmva an K:/ex «em. knpunyun uavanam mendmknn/m:\:l-kk.In konlnni rang dngunlknn seblg mgm (wams/mu) star flln uqabll I-nz mumlnkan ram pihng mg» Mu-n mennlanlun kafltkenallnlh an mumhmx pl... mu; um yang dmevuboh Muvnlulwlm pvvmhh Mahkamah benarikh 5 Mn: mm my dimlluskln ulzh Fun mm ylng ».m.m.nu mm YBVIQ Balm Semi Nmslnah M2/N, vehh mzmberunmn velrnnhanln Pam big! mum pumnan mum Ilzi petwerubohnn Defamer: tarsahuv. Mu kzpumun W pmak Ddlandan wan mamhual rayunn mac. Mahkumnlw ‘firing! din llyunn Dahmlln m. mun «mm mqum um kgpulusln Mlhkzmnh mg ‘m xix: Mlhkamlh w mnmhuul dwihn bamwa hmyn Iamnpm dun mu ulupn ying pm rlnmurukzn min 4» nm Idalnldanxkpnnmlnbohanahhpmakflhiandunhmidiv Ianih ynng dnnamhuh sw nacFv:qc:I/mznmvuvfixw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Dirmullvr o/my barniavy andbmr In mu n. mm mm 1»: srwuv-5 al wunmun IN 17 «I14 15 sum...“ la pfivuu to awn». o.;.,..;...;.... uI:rmglhuntdLami u.,.,«... Ila Cum dlsallawnd 1». pramm clam armza M0 90 /11! mm 0/.s«::m . firm a. mm m pa-vrmfntlbrr lrrxpmu mud ncmrdIn!LV dunllowcdfmyrr /ma/mmu orcum as Danmzn Mahlum-I1 UH M. blrplndukln um xv mvm K uuwmm Mn. mc: VISTA so» am: .5 uru um ma uuzm: :1; mm mnynum mm at bnwnh y........... vu.u....x /z2m.m.....;,..:./.21..‘ ,....g ummpmmm... MMMI P/arnlmvelah «man 1mm :.mm yang M-Wm mm ruab MU/A Km!/mIvN:g¢rlS:langaI Plainn//ugultmhmtngzuahahn awn: nwmbalh lmuicnun btmmlw Xelamn so mm. .2. am Tanah Iunbw in: mm (AIM rm yang -urlqruhun Prntwu Prvtu p.,m.... Krriua dun nmw. uleh so: ..,.m.. 01.» rm mhlah ...,.,..n /am 4.4. ».:.,....g.m W; mink .:.p.m»..m... «lav mum» Aabawa m:mr,+u:n;. menmgdukl dun mmgmnhaunv botxhel mow nmm mlwlf mm 10 mhnm mm uuzm bcmrvuan um rm ntrududuhdanmrngtflahahan semen.-..m« I23] WnlaflpwvD¢fl~danmMD¢mAz:IA4m.v1anuP/ulna/rnrndmiuhlizmn mam nmnwl u-w herrmfarul my M... rnenqlahan uu yang’ brrkzm dalam 1141 Am Wulnupurv Ianah rzrnrbvl r-m1tWr.vm mgm rlmnltiymug .:..4...:..... a..m 1......» ...z.:. x.,..,-..... "W. map! mm dnilnlum u. .1... 11/11! M... mm mm .mm 4; Mia»: pmgelahnan mm llumaam .v.»;m .44.. Inga o.;mm.o./mm Nnmm begin: mda xabamng Am yang menwyvlbzn bahalm 1-/mar um dlambll I/miaimn om mu Berluua mm mm mmgmmmzharv Tanah meow nbelum mm r=H:vmf~rharv Jthmxxafah Now Anwrnn pm Wu :;.,...u :12 Ma. 2015 «Mum 1| sm mnivlqnamznmmvaxrm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 1241 p..ar.7.. mm ; um¢gaAmrIl96:} 1 mum pm; 1 M7./3680, we. /man rntngulalnm mm emu... Tvupnn Lynn m,.m.; apoyxuvwryrrght n.,,«.mm..: mm ,..,mm.;.,.. nrlhutu-ea_/I)rrrrc.rpn:LArry/wnlo/pI1¢Iu1row,:uVongmrvuthw ,...:M...;.......u..,¢..¢.:w.:»..;.¢ ..u..m...pa:71.mmu:7s 51 mm x ;,m,m 1». N2: mm ;a. Mug m gm” 7 pailrkn 1; .-«mm ha mm 1». mmorv u 1; ml mamary M ». pIaIm!0"IPdJ.I:muvv1hauIdb< la-vfiolarudauwzlpmxraxlan um um... .11.-mu».m~n.. carumwabglm um ormumm 1,. .;...m..‘ [IS]Dnb:m m lnl uu,..m,:..>.n my unluknltpunulunadallhlavla nda D4/érviarv-Dcfrndan mm». pn...m., bomnggmgfnwaa mm pcncvmbohan flan hcmralan am fhlnlg/yang mm 4: m. Tau}! 20:20:: pm» mmapalpntmmn kmuzxpamnrmn Lm my Juya um. Inmpmblllnm memm am dun/uxa mawym "mm upada pfllxnbl/EH Dgkndanrdtfirdnn awn ,«m..a.,»... m»...;..p ham :-:..»..;r W um ..mg.... sm ..",4.,.- W mrnyntnlwl :.,....»...x M. 25 Nomnber 2111: rilnma o4..4..,D./mu mm“ ...,...m.: M. nnthm ulna ,,.».y,..,m,.. M. ..,..w Mk. W mmmnk .1." mncvmbah n...,.;. W... W m.:,.,.. W... ..m.x....w Pvwlamn dun Jerum ...,M,.. 4... 1.14.». mn,V¢baM-an l:v-mzlarl krmda Anna nulvk Pmmrl ltrmultk .........4.u..,.\.»..;.n...,»‘.»....«...W,,44w..\.,..ng.»,.....¢..,. ....,.,l ,,.,.s..., W... ,..,....... Mr... nfi .a.. mzm. m.....m..,......,.......,...m,.,,a...n..:,.,.....,,,,,m.. w..m., b:bmwrt »....mM null! pvwxxm-Pdangxun ml.../, .,.~,..,, nwrvggunalarv bu dun jrmrra marln mm dun muym W. mamum.mmmam:pa.,.::mmmm [27] K:1:rwrvgan sr 1 ma duoavnx alch kmrnruun sr :, Wm Pawn Ptiwwm Datmh mam new man Langnl ya»; :2 ‘ sm mnflllqnamznmvuvsxrm «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! menguallhwv Mm. MW: mmhanu u...m... unlit. mm; Azlahdvrvbahhanxlpvnuhnyfiokflwmkyarglldakmkmlpmltim mm ..m... .1... opartm .s¢...,....:.. 3...... M..,... r..a........... x../W mu; .1... p.,..o... Tunah/Darrah um um. bag! Wm... mpayanengwwvgfiun r.....n »..:n.... pa; ml 1.... mm... .s¢....... mm Mm nm....u. 2: r.s......« mm W mrtuusuhhnn 4.... ............n... bahawa u.,...w.. ptmbnhzn bank! r:..mu,7 mm. mnah .m.»... .-dam 4.1.... penprahlmrl .:......«...r.o.......:mu Mmalalu M... m...» :42 p.»..n.. zm ..:.».p.,.z;... r......m>..:...;. I-lulu mwm. m...u....:..... »...;....... nmahz M.» ..........m. pvgvlahudrt 4.... mg mu»... 4...... .m....... mm mg»: n....../ 117} 54». mg.....n.: .-«A1...» n..:...M... ......». n¢,e...1..n r.....»... 4... pmjtk penbvmnn m..5........ ..m....g.... Irdanx .1.,.1...n.... .1.» pqem... Ktdua mmuk n...<s.:..a.... 4...... 2....» Isrubul 1». ram mu...» .-..:..:..4,.a....» .....a. ... PM [:0] mm mm. ma... ,.........¢..;..... :»..,....... Pm; cm» 5: Co ywvgmzlvallln Dejkmiun Frrmrnn mm. .....,;.......m.. bcrvwvkh 4 mm» 1111: 4......» Plamlv/yang «mm. bahmm n....../../..n .......;...M. .......:. u......,...... D¢/(Man r.......... 4.... .m...a... ......,;....u..... :-:......./...p..,».. ....y..m.... ....m.... mm. 4.4.... ....... u mm M. ..w........:. amm a Kv Svvam K Nuayanan /wn Mar mm mm: Sam 14.120/7/MLRHUIIJ mm dam .mb..»n.... ..mu... Banguman /31] 1mm. mm 1...»... run. ,....; mam: 91:0 :1»: ....a.. 25 ./muuw my: ......I.... don It/ndlaflmruz mu... m mmyalaflarv behav 7:/ah -fidaunrw at.» 1 mm: w....r pa/mt... m...... pub 11 1...... ms um. mervbnhlan awn: dalam M... mm»... [)2] (m M... 9/1): Dcfzndan rmum M ....;....m.... /1131! .....xn....... wmlpadt upunm km... 1-.....a...z.....:. :=.,..a... 2; sm m:FV!q=:mZnAx7Nv§xrvw «mm. 5.... ...m..wm .. ...... m may .. mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Darn}! Hulu Law um «man mung mum bmxm 4... gnu...” ,..n..,.g..... m... y...., .m,.4..n:.,. .1. M rm mum a.;.m.... mm /4.. rumbnml mm” Wm rum mangmvnghn am»-1 minmm Bag: Iujuan hernrhrqa Damian yang nulubathanjalan Mun: maul dun lkkbwwn Jnlarv Semmwfl !3!]Pm1alaM1zmI,d:rIxWfi'A1rvdanb:dmAzt:rangnn)0WsdI£zmuluzAan nun ma»-ui ma ho:--an lb-tn am: mm-inn k=eb<ru"K‘“m"' balvwa Dr/:ndavI—D:/mdan mm plhal yung m.,.....,.... hpeu... dun ».,m..,.:.. mm .....5.;..»@». punk ptmlagnun Hurray my In/nan mm prmbmvgnnan av um: Iamhnvn am» an m 25¢ me «ha 2712 um». Sad-'IW:‘ Danah my mum. Samuw Dav! Ehxan om wax mum bvban mum mu nunmbar merangan P7amN/fidatafi berp-ma nzwau uz/o-4..., dc/mu [14] SW1 rrwldwuu Perm:/a I’:-vbslmn De/0-dam Anny-7 Inxnafitun ubamrrg mm..4.... umm Iangnmg dun W. 1...”; dalmn u..:....,. ,,..,.,m.».... awn: ,.».:..,M,. dlatm mu. umbw u.,a».:.....:.¢m.. M. ncnytuahtn mocha mm barlangymglawab mm, [mm pampamn ..... mgr yang umxmuhakun etch Plum!!! dalam nmiakmv ml 50)" mndaflflfl Pvnbelmn De/Ind-In Mwyfllan hrrxwt I'€"¢fian wmmmmu bahmamervtz rrrlukIarwba1dula!aIn11”k‘€"7b9”'1" -mm Nam m.....». mu w-aw. ma. ,.....,,.,. ,,,.4.,... M: yang .;.;....m..n:.;. ue,w...o.;.,..4..,.,....,...,.u./.a.... krdrlynmyn ,.u...; M». mm mm 4... WWW, »,,...uw.. mg. “Wm. man n-mow x...mm. ..., mm «M smyvnz «mam bahawa um mm Yam Jrpflxelx/avnn ma brvubdalwn ufam dwv pvv1ekp<mhLr-can 07:1! I)!/Gnflm tum Par-rlfiavv /1<'/¢vuland!I'vIdan nwgrnav Pvrvsl,}7¢IM Irrnwwrtn dun ,,..»...a...m ».....:.mar-1-uala-nr-«u.r»m:..».xsm....:.m: rm: Cram M... .m.,...... lrzrnm plhnk M A.m,...m..,. dart u sm mnflllqnamznmvuvsxrm «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! ».....p..ux.-m/.,.a.». am plngnmvugan lanai: mm mm» ndat hm dun mm mm «lain dun DI/Sudan-dl/fmian uu undnn Dela»! AaImI1lll(1IAKm K:/mvwwv u amrflmvllv/adafah Ifdak Iopalm mu yin: tkmvhafl Wyn I-und¢PW'l'rmbrlaan n-/ma» «pm ..z.u..n ndakbxvularnbru we mu [JJIA-ialall mxanmdanxy-ng may bawaw-or-an -«.........,m 11.1.-m bakh .:»m.... xbngal m ,..,..L-.:,..... Balm: n. am Plruuzhaan mu Dan Srdrrhnmz Mn/uyxu M4 » Pmggvr Mupau sansnmi {M11016} mm .512, nmjmum [2016] van 5::--[M171 MLMIUJ73 Kv Sllvam xwamaw. M rm ma Sdn w .4 my Lax: V: 9 mm war nu evident:/Orwwdttiiir mg 4‘/?'IdavLHa.vuAr/a1raVnha( dove! Irvacuvyllnrtzflmih b.;m,-mu my ummmm vu mbm l1I¢Ivr:.vp<v4rw:nyu nnlbn bolanu 9/,....»..m:n.. Unleu am.» up plnl»/If: MM 1. )0 mm »/ marllxxa uxlo rmdar u e. on u... u ubvhmtly umumbmble mu//V ma. .u....;...:m Itmlnf rm wgm bxlntpuhm ma mmmuhzn rmu mm» Maya mtmbumllm mm ma rahall beban mbanwn wmxwm. ma. .7. um.“ ndalah laiwllx um. u-/-mv</«am um... um mm/4. um buluwbh dmyaslvn man Iw-.m.p....,..... (m..,.;..,.; mm): m,.. ..,»..4.,. ,,...c.,.,b..».a. ampm: »....;.. »..unm oleh m/mmu¢,s....:... sm anprndapm ,m.m.. o.;.,.:.... mmm mm ,.......w rvmmr n.:..../ mm mmafllmt mm plnsrmbohan mupau; mm» harm mvhk .»:...m/ 17¢/tmian mm M.» lama Jmdurl mgm.: ymm. uncut mnvbnh mm: Pramvuiranpa mnmmwmm nnimt mm Tivndakmvnaadalnhmnaviunrrndumnpwwmhahmwrx ...h.,.,....:...r..;.M.,..m».:....m.»..m-:,.:»«:,7 [371 pm-. 1.2.. M vm 1.... 1... gm Sq Aha 4 ggg mg [2010] 4 Mill]! 11 [21111] 1 cu Isa u Iklvvubjnva Knmumn dulam Mwnkmmma an p-mm» rm I:/ah mmjuk lepadn m M :aM/ 7 mm m 2.; sm mnflllqnamznmvuvsxrm «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! aux... Mflllfl um. omen mmgalahnscprr/I emu: . mxpmu u 11 [Ml mm ,......,,..,,., .9, agnvml uwrcuhrp /1 mm m ,.m....,.. mayrml 5‘ 1». uwmrplr .. mu 1! -nmrcdta damazu y,« lbw: u vwxpau wan nu ma m,,,.m am, aclmmlble ,. .. ,., 1»... nnmrmldamugvx W. be given mm ., rrupntufufdanmxtx I35] ole» m» rum-nun rIumn/ dwcmvsenn tam/-/1»; Hun M -ma wmmn as semum. dnnuvan ken a. 11:5‘ m.r.x.m.>. M. »...p.m.,.u.n mm umum IAdakm:mpun)/A1 Dembehnn ynng haxmunl my m m. mmm plgulm Deflandan yang cub: memlsukkm keteunqm dun mm" yum um bonmnnn up-m Pluvnm mm. menyewn n um helm mm mm mg. mm!-n mu Ialvvzn datum km W tam cub: menglhuri pmdungln Mlnknmnh um yum; mnnl mnnnlkul ks: ggggmgmuggmm §EnE5g4Mg muvsu sun m Pmsgfi ggggn gm gag g gig; ma 5 Muu :22 um suu no-12015 9 cu m y-nq mamuluxknn mm Punafian smumau Makbeleh «mm sehln mmu aumbeh u an Pm seuap man nu ma Mlhknrnnh nu herpinfllngln mm nu pnnavvubohan y-nu mwmm lsu mama yum nenu dlbtuuknn yum; mm Isiah pun ammmkan melalm Inesemuu kelnunuan flukumen am. mmnnan balwmplh uxmauu pmaxwux, 34 Dawn was: man yin: iama‘ Mahkamah an m- mamnmbfl Duvhnflnn vmmn {UEMEHMW7 Deremlan sandm seem»: membenknn kgdenmnn dxum M.mm.r. mIyI"w anmamnng morlauharwbnh kglevangln Iemusuk nunyiukzn um xnalah mm“; mm mmn namun iamasa namluvaan uu dunhnkln M.>.x.m.n mlndlplh b. m Duiandan uh-namyi bukamah nanny mm hum! scpem ylng nan-n amn.m.:.m non kmllngln Bvnankh 5 sun-mm ma .1: nu use 32 Ahudupaundlauz.MahkamahWbavpuvdalvyanganltrugwanghsnnsul n mm xshnnynk RMmu.an nhan lhu nun Ruzxoonoo xabulin mmglkut kzbemnnn yum .mnk.n om mm mum yum; uwx n 1-II\rvgg\ kn ms 1: sw uacFv:Iqc:ImxznAnMv5xrm um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm p...wm.n um mu mun sabanyak RMa.Awn nu sebum: :3 Mankzman vm mom pm mmngau yang amenm may Pllinlfl mm Dlnumbnhan um mum can mm 2015 snnmua 31.12.2021 hersamnn mm 1155 n Am mm \m munmun mu munhnnkan gaml mm Iehnnylk RM1I5‘5fl0D0lIpllI5 mm. m hlwan 1155 run )1 Rlmnwn = RM115,Sfl|).0Il flumhh nu. poncnmbehzn b«1aku)x(RM1W.IWnrun mm ; lhmlall mm at. Belkennnn denyln gm. mg! Iulnd-n Mnnkimun rm bnrplnflangln bahlwu lumhh y-nu amen ereh sum sebnnynk r<M5a,mm an .1. r. banewlun dunvan kei W memandlngkarl mm Deiamhn ram. memmmbuh u. huh mum-ngan mmnaw. mntnlefl, kummuamnevapa kendenan mu ynni menyahlbkan kamukin pm Ilmklul um ylng dlnzvahoh Igrsebul leb-gmnunl yang mpumlkun dawn kn: 2 (mm: tahlni an blwnh 147/ g 1». Cruvlrxguulcdbylhrpvtnct . 1...; law» gm. V mggmm AC mo In my tvul IM u./.».:..... m..y.,.W nupnnmg hf ...p.., 1,, W. 4: Ma: ..,.m um. Plmrmfl 1,. mo MAN!’ .». Dcfismtznn cwwluw 11/ IW-IPIKA/Ivy w... M ummxl ewlaulmd 19 mm m pmfil mm Mumu 311 E n@m.u m. EMF: :3 ... me Dc/vndnm Hum m. .w.:.m, VA: Dt/«dam ;»......4 ..., VHWIHVII M w. ma cnnvmurd 1.. mm. mm m yunl L.....z M Ma]: . ,..,fi.;,, uni] 1h-rrlarrmarc mu.,m.,.,,,.;.,m.,...4...,u,.u.;..,. Mmumom.’,..,um.,/,,..v.m.,....m.,,.,...« am: 1...: mm 1/ WW mum m. A-vfidmw than ». arruudealthr D:/rndawuaroraldnvrtzwdanddunxpaa ./1». "nu amlpvvpovm gm pm..././r /mum 53, u.,...;.... 24,. and V [,1 EM; gm [mu 2 mm :7 sm uacFv:Iqc:ImxznAx7Mv5xrm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 2!‘ /IWJJ 1 MM 515, IIM/1/ 4 CL! if Baum: mt De./<ndambad:h«AmwI:dg¢ Dlrrelpvu nndnmm: had ..., EM ,4 ... pz..m,,m. Mm mt ..,..m, ». ow... .., ..._ 0/fnmv M. ...4 Landundnbn W ...., .». ..m;....n,, ... a.,w.,.u u.......,,.,, .,...; /mm!/omlLV mrmd our III: an nexpnrx Th: Dr/-‘Man: gm. kl-1 mm1am1m~mn».apmfix »m...m. :1 vlwflgh we Japan! 0/ 'l'IIW,v mum and 110105‘ 0/ qunrrynwchallhe nevghbawmxfandtclhl mum In M W, 1;. (‘mm mmm W ..;..m M. .b.,. .....,I,,, damagn In In ...,..,..,W, M... WW4 ........ rim cw. k ..y,.,.. M ...m,,m, .,.,...¢,.. ... pummmm n....w.5.,M........c..,.v, mdEmJm ‘flea MJ M. 1., D: W ... M ... ... M fig gm.‘ mm mu .,....k. .. M... . .. mm For m. m. ... gm; M. .5. .. ...m.. n[xM5a mum I: ,0 A. m Prnwr N [K/ .Smmnov 0/ Clam m «Jinn D/u£Mp1PG danfiw: I3 arlmmi 2 xsnnusm mmum 35 Umum menlabnm mm mu manamana kes mm, mm mm mammm mlmpunym mm» p-amhuklnn unmk nu-nyllzkzn hahawuxtnualulunluhnm . .m. Izenlv dun mum. Ieknn Iernlln-semlh lm mm. berundukln pad] ucsyen 101 an m Akin Knhmngnn 195»: mu. say yinq mu memnemnlukknn’ -m nu... .....:..u.-n.. up Szunpn /wing zmnm: »..,...,.. nwnarrrwrm malllamah m..smm p«ngm..m m.m.c apzmpn M man 2. sm uacFv:Iqc:ImxznAx7Mv5xrm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm mnzxflzvm .1: wt mmgwmng, Jan»: bannnml tq~d- km-4/at-n I-4; yvrw an-cs... new-. ....m.:. ....nman.. 5.1..../.n..... m.;.: m Apmbrlu m..mg :.,m.. unluk ....mm.».n mwu4.,. apwpa /am mamlm bahawa bcban mrmbuhlkwl lerlglakpadaarnngxm in ma 114;: zmkm ea... nanbuklllnl lebm .......>.m.. an. ,.....m luuun amt pmmu rerkvlfirill -mm»: um .-mm nadzz apnvpa ;.,..-ma» tavuw-e mm... gr.» ..mmua M-zlr ‘ as map wvmmn adahh alai am: mubangan kexmanmnun {bnllnm cl pmammu; ubagn¥Iv\In| yang amymm ow. Muhklmuh Penekuman dlhm kc: on sunuuuaaunmu v nsmsmv :10 § muaAMu mm: mm 2 cu 151- may : ML] :1 ylnu eelnh memuluskan buhnm beban yin; perm «was 11 mm» dahm mars-n meomngtuxun mm m-mm. ken -Ml Kn w Jim Iumldlllfllun mam pannun aaum kn Mahkimah fuse! a ans -1. Lu: nrr mum on (24121 1 L»: m lnanyitzkzn nplm yang mm m; 1»: Flntnlqb M the Inga! andrvlduumlburdeu Iopmv: Alfl H mm. D/]lIu5dhV'llIl1 ./..;.u.m.w n M. .,..,m m. u.y...u....;. lhnrughmt my mu! flrfurl M Irmu M In 1». nqnmmu 14/ mum um. Drfmzy 1,. M. znnr ,/ g sumunmmnmv y mmsmy S/0 ; m MMMr1l_Lu mm cu 1: m97[3ML1 - -mm nu, me In: and m6¢h’AheEvxdznwAu 1950.1»! with the hurdrn afpmnf may 1 /01, H .: pvwwrizd /hat uhurvrrdamn»unyzrnurrmklve/udymankmmamltgalnghl .r :.a».m,_ «ma... .. tlu ...-.u....=. .4 (.4. ..;..-.0 In 1; sw uacFv:Iqc:wxznAnMv5xrm «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Aurm mm pun that ring: gen 5-3 14;, . :1: m, mg. .[ [rvo[llA DJ mu gnaw m woull [nu [PW mu .. :...m.m.. ...a.4 m:..uu........ , u !¥. a«,.;...... .-.1 .mm,m. a mu rm.u.um.Mu: 37 5.1.... dlwln pnmnlmun Imdlnn-umllng din ..mm yang dmylllknn man-.n sen: kvlarlngnn dukumen dun wvn van dllnm Mnnum-n mu. Mnhkmuh w bemamianfinn nummexu mm bersumh huh-wl mm P1: uv Inlan Denny: menbukukan am many-n kehmrliknunn (bl/nncv ur prDbIbdr!»cs}dIrI lnrdapllpencevobcnan dulam kn w. as. Dam pea. mas! yana sum Mahkimah lugs bemnndnrwan bamwn pm menu-n lelah ulna! menaakas lwuuun mm: Olen aemuum Lnmplmn < mm. unbanatk-n aux kc: mngm naval koc da\amAluvIn 59 mm 23(Roc zmzv mmnzuan om sw .,a=sv:q=:a‘znmwsm. um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (H) uaklr-nyl bennrremlpn Dlvmelnlzohnn‘ Mm: min pm-x Phmlfl baleh memmml wmmal ml mwmm mam a. mu am am mung! ggfifigggfl 10. Berxanun dnnvln Isu yum pen-nu Mnhkanuh ml rum rnendenllr menwun-n um, flukumsn din mum» mam. nuilhm mmwh-x dun n. pm is hlnbuhn Dunmhlr zuza wnnnan mam: Im um dvbenaman haralumun mu. am dlplhn 1- Im :1: Damn Malulm Dualellngan psglwm dlvlnblun r.mm.n.n um En Fllxlman my. Asnnn memul pemyum sum beliau, mm menurliukknn In m Phmhl mmu v-mama lawn I/om] um um Fhmll Igrxehuv. Kelemnnnn vwt mu bcrkanan dengan ualian mu mm wpafll aw amn- u;uk)upn ma-zark nDo ,...nv.;._;To.;:.m.:u,u1 5-mun 5 mm dokumn /m7 In n »..r.»«... pom!!! Nu sf/Ms/v1/2007/PENGGL/NAAN clan Jlbalnn Pcmuhrmv Nvgon salanoer »mm 25 at zwiyuw dkbsnkm usm. gm we Ah n__ Auam alumni mg dmyltnlmn 4.1.." Pumr! rurxnbufl Knmpjrfmen Nu m mm sm-cam Kakal SImam'Bu)uIv Bud-5-nmrv mm: Isrublll. pomoyuvw row. mm ms/skukannknvmnpldrtanan Islssbufl sunam rm mcnandztangnm Penmlremebnm ma Mend Sivan 5». mm Muszara {Pmgaran Jabalan Psmutanan mm So/anpa_r_pod: Mmlnjfll 7] In/s zu lk Inn Dokumln v ng Dcuuum/IA! mm mm Knwuun Psnmt Panggurunrv yang mam.” mama Enuk ryu Ah 7- _a::-pm» mum" ram lmsebufl 4 55 n-km: sm aa:Fv:I-qnnmznmmvaxrm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! EEEMZLELAINILE zmcxx AWIAR swan AIL smuw sums» mom wsnmus us 2:4: mm rewm msvu cxzwm 5 co (KUALA LUMPUR7 EEUMEEENEAN mm JESSICA woue vx swe 15mm muzou: s LAM mwmzzsmr N uacFv:qc:I/mznnnuvfixnw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Tpntapalnra noun Pelsk dullm pelan MQM7 Due mm mam darn Patik a 1: Bomunknh mam PIIakAdnnPoaakE1lv:vlzutma5mg~ m-MU’ kmklll ./arukuntukFslpkA up/. amm. azm a»c-mm 12m O-Dndlfnh 42am o_smun Elm E-Asdalnh mm unkunmkhhka A1—E1ndal»H 112m s1—<:v mrnnaom cv—p1..a.1.n 112m D1—A1 mm mm 1: Smpnklh ylng mcnlndnlmganlpalnn larum/I7 nu Pnlln rm mllnflatlrvglm am Main! mm Sm Summit Hum Pnluv mam; um Muhamldsm Mur-4 {P99Jws4 Hulan Duamh seranw Téflfiah} is s mm kopudl m 2145 /k-an Dakurmn Yang moan-um Banlyvln 3 mm doklmmv-ookurmn famsbufi ./ /mm mam;-: d-Manda mm’. Pomutumn men s./mm man. 5m.~»< Ty! M Y: flan mama pembnynmn aleh Em we 4». To ksnm mm. Pvmuburmn mm sumo: am hmm 2907 mm- mm- 2020. 15 5 am mm mm. ram?-12:4! flan surut-aunt pamhaynmvl «mam mun unluk -p-7 4 Surnhurltpflnlbflylrnn mm unmk mamaklumkuu Enoik M An muualaslan on ma flan rust!-ruslumlnlv unmk blyarxn m-nwm umum, blyuan rec pmsexp-nnonmun Pvmbuharuun Pimut my Daylrm pomnmn p-meqmy nomm m ./mm» Pemumnun Maven selarraouzaua manna mm :7 s Sllpllmh yang mannndatangam muhuri an xurwlsunt Pombayar-an zumbm ./ I Fast!-mm! mm. nclnkln sou owmmpum dun an-k mamerlukan landalangan um um lamm saw sun» smut mmnayamn mm manaamnan: o/sh Psnqaran mum." mm, Solungarbnml Ensnn 1 smmmm a4 a4 2095 my» ow-mmq-m oklv Mun-mad Sm sm aa:Fv:I-qnnmznmmvaxrm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! mum — m 23 Vkabn Dokuman my cxpwr-am sansman a- 2. Sum! mm amzm .4./.:. m.m.m.n. me» Dr Mulvd pm Em D-num . M 27-29 M... Dukvman Yang Dvpwsalwuv 5.» ox." 5. :5 Sum nmmm 19.062917 ..1.:.». m.m.:.»g.,.. oficlv Dr Mona F .4 Em mu." 7 m my lk-tun Dakumon Yanv Dwlrutlllm Balm M . Sum: mm. 151252915 mm. dltlndutlngarlr Nun pm 1» H.IMuh-1PualBmDanalIn»m/5!!» 37 Maren Dohuman Yaw Ulaurashr 1u:ElImp4m 9, 5 Sum n.n.m 170520217 mm mmmgam am new Rvdzumn am 5m:n1— ml: Av-42 mum aak... M Vnng Dcponelmm Bmngran 5 dm a. sum emu» ammo mm dvt-ndammru om Hnw mm m, m.M...s».s»m—mmsm.m omm Yuma Dwenemm am. gun a 12. rmm pm mu-ynnu nmI,Pw1MI nu.» mm-n mmnn-n y-nu max wamm man menukmmkan mung-rm penc-mnmn ya-w unmm ulelv Dlfendan up-m mmnaan GI mun Na) 2: Ram kenada mix 5557 /kalan Dukwmn Vawg Dav-mrwu. sansvun s Ax:-km dokumln hmbm um». Mn! Plnmmkuudn Jnbalan Remmsnnn New smnnor hednnkh 477.09 ms 22 Bflakan mm! rsrsaoumwm man man» Pemlnanlrv um" sumyun .77 av zm sm ua:Fv:I-qnamznmmvfixwn «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 2:5 mam» my mmraumm urea Ptunnvsurum mu: Ismbul ‘ND-an nbarln Pamumnuv Noyvn so/Huron Bnluwn mzmoonmmm mm ............m mm... mm... m »<....u.. mun p...m.r.-mm mvndtmmn um... um DlI'9"VIIn rhnv mifllloi Dim!-II! WWI! DIW Dfikllll-P“W7l ...-...., .........4.... ....:............a..... .1... ....s......... bwar :.... now, mcavalvr. Mann 4.. .....4..., ............. my. welding a..ga.. ....m....... ...m........... ......«...:.. ...,.,.... he9(awH<|9/lllfl Hm? mwlflkm rmlaflfllfl undlmhmda/W mm Klwnan Laswv mm... n..;..k rum... ".2; 92.93 um... Dakumon Vnng o.p..m...'..r Balvflman 5 Aamr. dokuman lsrssbufl ma slmldln rum... Farr!!! Grswnl 5 Ca k-pm Jlbatln P.m......... N-am s.1.nwrbum.w. :1 m 2020 Adakan Ma: ransom «mm. at.» 4. a... Pemulan Ssllwofl v. 255 mm»: mm. m :4 rm-n Dokmmn my Dunmrum sun-gun 5 mm dokumen ms-Dul7 rm mm Rural bafiansn dnripuda ma... r.m...m..... Neg-n smnywmarm. 101129217 mm mm! Yeluan Fawn! saw-rs can-mnknsv wzazn 275 mm yang flmylfnhrv .:.1..... sum! balnsan tlrufiufl 5-mm Encrk In M ra ca./an p-m-gm Pwmofpwvywnun ylrvp m Dag! pltlkll am pnblk a damn mum 4 55 mm: .1. m.r..g.... »<.....p..w.... 10, mm 5......" s....g.. Bmolv, s.:....;... .1... my... yang .1.m...m.. mun Dug? ...,...... aanm... awn sm m:Fv:Iq::mznA.mv5xrm “Nate 5.... .......w... .. ...... .. my .. ..«....u.. mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum pm... 25 slaonkm yunv monamnluwlm ma: Dalasan IuruDul7 Plnglrnn Pamummrv, my Mom mm" am am: 22 mm kovada m vwr yum nommn Vunv mpmarwu, Bantam! s Apaklh dukumcn ms-nun rm mm suns! mm. mum Pumullnan my-n Sullnvor honankn 11 11 am mm Ermvk Tyc Ah 7. Anna ram: mnmmn u.:.m sun! nsmebufl :1 smw. Muyuurnrllwuluvkunn Pangumsan ;-mm... Niger: Salmguv(JKPPNS] M 212019 mm mam-bust koumusnn mm. 4.1.’. mufiuluskm mnuk mnlan/ulkm rsmvun mm nmul p-mu:-pamnlpenggurvaan [swam/umomn v; umnggl mm. 2025 mm mm Ervctk MM r. Duldl ./.m:-mm. 1 hmbm Ada :2 Wllluplm auiumaumn Aepndu lnmm 2:155 xanuda Enctk Tysfih 1. mum dlplnukan urvruk mcmpsmnnalm yanmmeswn panpqmmun Amlnswza-in map Iahurfl y- xa Mun. knlnvung-n mm m [up can menunjukkan blhawn Puvmn um. nvarmunl bnylrnn mum Jnblhn smuum sane» «mu bum p-mm dun Ellen wumnv. FW1 Jun: member: mar-mu mm mm» r>.m..w..n nan penu mghaluskan man:-mun: wmn mu pmm xmn. Defendln yhlw now. a-Inn raw: an man u s ‘Bardaurk-n raknd -nnk, mam: ulna-up! Delrmmnsm aaumm up-.1. van Kan)? Hem mam s mnspun Son 3009 sm ua:Fv:I-qnamznmmvfixwn «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Jfindn 44;. s. Adakan ./abltan Pomulansn menoemm tsntzny Yap my Hons’ mam A Trnnlnon sun em 4 Va c1 5 Mmywlhn Jabaluv Pnmulsnln Nogm Salinger mm nnngamnunnamnt-man-pV-pxunvNvngnm.gum..-pan snnflhaa 4 Karma my: Ids/an 1-mung:-wan P¢"'B9In9 PIImMuuln swan un!uk”V"'l'9I 1- nynnvdvvmnv 1: s.|...;-.my., Mnhkamnh m1 iug: (elm mum pm meungm ww< lemnl am: bum nleh mum. wanm y-nu -my-um. mm kausmen mm sememlnanyu smxu van:-mman yanu mumm. an-an ummn upem yam: a-an minn mm -mu xemr-nun uplm dl ml. IE mm. 22 mm pmsmnv Eunmm A 3apIambnI2flZ'.4 “pm .1. um». ‘um smmng,.m..ny. smmn Enc:kFa:z:nIvk.sndengan nndmgan says hahuwa mamum kawuan av my comm pain rm nmma». kawuan ./ubatun Fsmulsnsn ‘yang armam mun nun p-mum» hi-Md: Plhak Plmnm Mun-—nunl lawman 41 Vulrpcflk mg nmm. Am bukanl-Iv klwasmv mm. Pumulnnln PW1 om Sam! Mmamena mam my a war danpada hslakmrbuhndv um» mum Pomulanln my n51 Vlng ur :15/am Jaoatarv Psmumnan beam PW1 v. o-M " " Dov Krfu. my vanganum PM/1 ma .1. luarbukan a. new. D01 ' Euknm4uI7 PW1 v. 'Dc'1 ' 0 sm aa:Fv:I-qnnmznmmvaxrm «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! blhawn kamlarnn» Mann um Dolsoman ads/an Iovislak a« mvpmk cum on Vuupstlk mum pm W Emnk Fm: m mum mu cum dafum Inmpil, not new Pnmannl xnowwoo an» nww say! drflhlmhn lwrrdcrun Nah Dtlsndan (swank dv d-lam Klwuln pmmzm-:»..n Mr rmn r. D01: any Informal /Eu nmrmm Enclk rm .1 uma om uumnyu blrduurknn mud. sunfynng am-um um. mm 9/» Mr ms Ah Ts yang m.m.u.mm n.».w. turdlpnl lemon bar-ll amour». usury-na duietulomn av dalam kawusan mm -q-mm mm. m; nelnhu Ermk Fan my Jabamn Pommnam conupinfnl 1., ./wk: cumhlsmlyfiflv unumm n/ah nmnkPIaInn'lkapad- mum Tun mun xmmun mdmummman pllvak Dolandln my um:-x-n rm-m< av dnlam knwbn/v my, new pm. sum om Hlnyn kondunnrv-lrurrdorun slim: yang m ylng .4. bsrwmpmnt uleh man P/almiikepada mm. k.smu7 Sayn ma: mm a-ma. mum.” am: Dkly, mm-r M- bmaan yam seam mm m, am senem mmdnkflengawnl dam laarmoai/y kaballyuldusnjmvtsm‘ mm mm Lorwurinamr run nu :.n ylng Pllmmpunyl complain! 7:7: PM ‘/5 L701 om Islam Enok rm Kata ads]!-VD-I comwaml nnluvg mmm PW?’ ’y7.,;.,. .m.H..m.. mm. Dmann .,.,..m pengawul om marumk mm mum" kondoman mus Emuvv mm p...g.w.n any Em in; noun rwuk mm. Pamyumm Snrw am F-rz 4 Joalvr 2D’*.I:wapan ylng am-mun nun gm Flrz, Enuir rm; rrlulquk kupnda MW emu! oonw/urn amma Ftamnfyuna menanlakan, my. om Kan. Emu Fan’! muawaaan yaw -mam om Ermk rm :0 sm ua:Fv:I-qnamznmmvfixwn «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-25-4-01/2023

PEMOHON Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya RESPONDEN 1. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN NEGERI SELANGOR 2. ) NOBLE HOME CARE SERVICES SDN. BHD.

This application for judicial review pertains to the application of the second respondent to renew a planning permission to operate an eldery care centre - Order 53 Rule 3 (6) Rules of Court 2012

10/01/2024

YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8bf00183-4243-499f-972c-92dc95b4b41e&Inline=true

1 BA-25-4-01/2023 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-4-01/2023 Dalam perkara mengenai suatu Hartanah yang beralamat di No. 1, Jalan USJ 18/3, Subang Jaya, Mukim Damansara, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan (“Hartanah tersebut”); Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai permohonan oleh Noble Home Care Services Sdn. Bhd. (1126163-X) untuk Kebenaran Merancang (Borang C(1)) ke atas Hartanah tersebut; Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai Penolakan Kebenaran Merancang (Borang C(2)) ke atas Hartanah tersebut bertarikh 15/02/2022 yang telah diberikan oleh Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya (“MBSJ”) kepada Noble Home Care Services Sdn. Bhd. (1126163-X) (“Keputusan MBSJ tersebut”); Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai rayuan oleh Noble Home Care Services Sdn. Bhd. (1126163-X) terhadap Keputusan MBSJ tersebut kepada Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (“LRNS”); 10/01/2024 08:57:31 BA-25-4-01/2023 Kand. 28 S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BA-25-4-01/2023 Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai keputusan Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan untuk membenarkan rayuan oleh Noble Home Care Services Sdn. Bhd. (1126163-X) dan, antara lain, untuk mengakaskan Penolakan Kebenaran Merancang (Borang C(2)) tersebut bertarikh 12/10/2022 (“Keputusan LRNS tersebut”); Dan Dalam Perkara Seksyen-Seksyen 2A, 3, 4, 6, 6A, 6B, 21, 21A-21C, 22, 23, 26, 36 dan/atau 58 Akta Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa 1976 (Akta 172); Dan Dalam Perkara Kaedah 4, 8, 9 dan/atau 10 Kaedah-Kaedah Lembaga Rayuan 1999; Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai Akta Perlaksanaan Spesifik 1950, Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan/atau Aturan 53 & Aturan 92 Kaedah 4, Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 BA-25-4-01/2023 ANTARA MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SUBANG JAYA …PEMOHON DAN 1. LEMBAGA RAYUAN NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN (Yang ditubuhkan di bawah Seksyen 36, Akta 172) 2. NOBLE HOME CARE SERVICES SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 1126163-X) …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This application for judicial review pertains to the application of the second respondent to renew a planning permission to operate an eldery care centre known as the Noble Home Care Services Sdn Bhd at No 1, Jalan USJ 18/3, Subang Jaya, Mukim Damansara, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Reliefs Sought [2] The applicant is seeking the following reliefs in this application for judicial review: S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 BA-25-4-01/2023 “2. Bahawa pemohon diberi suatu perintah certiorari untuk mengakas dan/atau mengenepikan keseluruhan keputusan/perintah responden pertama bertarikh 12.10.2022 tersebut yang telah diterima oleh pemohon pada 21.10.2022 dan yang telah memutuskan bahawa: (a) Rayuan (oleh responden kedua) hendaklah dibenarkan dan Penolakan Kebenaran Meranancang seperti di Borang C(2) 15.02.2022 (oleh pemohon) hendaklah diakaskan dan digantikan dengan Kebenaran Merancang sehingga 31.12.2024; dan (b) Pihak perayu (iaitu responden kedua di sini) perlu mematuhi syarat-syarat yang akan ditetapkan oleh responden (iaitu pemohon di sini); (c) Tidak ada perintah kos; 3. Bahawa kos permohonan ini serta kos-kos yang berbangkit akibat daripada permohonan ini dibayar oleh responden kedua kepada pemohon; dan/atau 4. Perintah-perintah dan/atau relif-relif yang didapati adil dan suaimanfaat di dalam keadaannya oleh mahkamah yang Mulia ini.” Factual Background [3] The background facts are garnered from the Applicant’s Affidavit in Support dated 17.1.2023 and the exhibits thereto. [4] This matter pertains to a request made by the second respondent for the renewal of Planning Permission (Form C(1)), hereinafter S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 BA-25-4-01/2023 referred to as “the Application” to operate an Elderly Care Centre named “Noble Home Care Services Sdn. Bhd.” at No. 1, Jalan USJ 18/3 Subang Jaya, Mukim Damansara, Daerah Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan. [5] The second respondent submitted “Surat-Surat Sokongan Jiran Untuk Membuat Perubahan Material Kegunaan Bangunan Daripada Kediaman Kepada Pusat Jagaan Warga Emas” to the applicant for the following landowners: No. Name & No. K/P/Passport Address Decision 1. Junaidarsuad (DR1914062) No. 5, Jalan 18/3 USJ 18 Subang Jaya No Objection 2. Norashikin binti Talib (660831-05-5656) No. 9, Jalan 18/3 USJ 18 Subang Jaya No Objection 3. Adrien Lee (920708-10-6209) No. 11, Jalan 18/3 USJ 18 Subang Jaya No Objection 4. Chan Kuo Jin (951209-14-5993) No. 1, Jalan 18/3 USJ 18 Subang Jaya No Objection 5. Nvinderjit Singh (590413-10-6595) No. 5, Jalan 18/3 USJ 18 Subang Jaya No Objection [6] Nevertheless, the applicant was not provided with any letter of endorsement from the owner of the adjacent land, namely Wong Kim Fatt, residing at No. 3, Jalan USJ 18/3. Instead, the applicant received a letter of objection dated 6.2.2022 from the said owner, S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 BA-25-4-01/2023 opposing the second respondent's application for planning permission, citing the following reasons: (a) the buildings within the Residential Zone are unsuitable for commercial activities, and there is suspicion that the second respondent may be operating without the necessary planning permission for the conversion of land use from residential to commercial; (b) no permission from MBSJ was obtained for the additional alteration and/or renovation of the building from two houses into one plot; (c) the additional alteration of the building will affect the fire safety, traffic flow, the environment, cleanliness of waste and foul smell; (d) the operation of the Elderly Care Centre has cause traffic jam within the residential area; (e) car parking area is full with visitors’ cars of the Elderly Care Centre; (f) the presence of visitors to the Elderly Care Centre is impacting the safety and harmony of the neighboring residents, as these visitors are outsiders who have not undergone registration as mandated by the residents; (g) the second respondent has, for the past five years since their establishment, declined or neglected to remit the membership fees to RA USJ 18; and S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 BA-25-4-01/2023 (h) occasionally, visitors engage in disputes with residents concerning issues such as traffic, parking, noise disturbances, and the like. The Letter of Objection from Wong Kim Fatt dated 6.1.2022 is exhibit “RR-3”. [7] Consequently, while reviewing the Planning Permission application submitted by the second respondent, the applicant found that the second respondent had neglected to submit the “Surat-Surat Sokongan Jiran Untuk Membuat Perubahan Material Kegunaan Bangunan Daripada Kediaman Kepada Pusat Jagaan Warga Emas” for the addresses listed below: 1. No. 3, Jalan USJ 18/3 2. No. 7, Jalan USJ 18/3 3. No. 26, Jalan USJ 18/2A 4. No. 22A, Jalan USJ 18/2A 5. No. 22, Jalan USJ 18/2A 6. No. 20, Jalan USJ 18/2A 7. No. 18, Jalan USJ 18/2A 8. No. 16, Jalan USJ 18/2A 9. No. 12A, Jalan USJ 18/2A 10. No. 12, Jalan USJ 18/2A 11. No. 10, Jalan USJ 18/2A 12. No. 8, Jalan USJ 18/2A 13. No. 6, Jalan USJ 18/2A 14. No. 2A, Jalan USJ 18/2A 15. No. 2, Jalan USJ 18/2A S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BA-25-4-01/2023 [8] The applicant organized a gathering of neighboring landowners on 8.2.2022 at 10 am in Meeting Room 1, Level 2, Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya. All attending neighboring landowners expressed objections to the second respondent’s Planning Permission application during the meeting. [9] Following the examination and consideration in accordance with Jadual 4.14 Klarifikasi Perubahan Material Bangunan, Rancangan Tempatan Subang Jaya 2035 (Penggantian), and Garis Panduan Perancangan Fizikal Bagi Warga Emas (GP031-A) 2018, the applicant rejected the second respondent’s Planning Permission application through Form C(2) issued on 15.2.2022. [10] Subsequently, on 18.3.2022, the second respondent lodged an appeal with the first respondent contesting the aforementioned rejection. Following a hearing on 12.10.2022, the first respondent, among other decisions, opted to grant approval to the second respondent's appeal and issued the following orders (“the Order”): “(a) Rayuan (oleh responden kedua) hendaklah dibenarkan dan Penolakan Kebenaran Meranancang seperti di Borang C(2) 15.02.2022 (oleh pemohon) hendaklah diakaskan dan digantikan dengan Kebenaran Merancang sehingga 31.12.2024; dan (b) Pihak perayu (iaitu responden kedua di sini) perlu mematuhi syarat-syarat yang akan ditetapkan oleh responden (iaitu pemohon di sini); dan (c) Tidak ada perintah kos;” S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 BA-25-4-01/2023 [11] The applicant received a copy of the Order dated 12.10.2022 issued by the first respondent on 21.10.2022. [12] Consequently, the applicant filed an application to obtained leave for judicial review against the said first respondent’s decision and the Order dated 12.10.2022. Principles relating to Judicial Review [13] Prior to considering and analyzing this application, it would be prudent for this court to be reflect on the legal principles relating to judicial review. Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 provides for the procedures for an application for judicial review. [14] It is trite that the decision of a public authority may be reviewed by this court on the grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety or disproportionality. This review is not confined to the decision-making process but also to the merits of the decision. [15] In the Federal Court case, Akira Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd v. Nadiah Zee Abdullah & Another Appeal [2018] 2 CLJ 513; [2018] 2 MLJ 537, the liberal approach on judicial review in R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 147; [1997] 1 MLJ 145 has been re-emphasised at pp. 547 to 548 (CLJ); pp. 571 to 572 (MLJ) as follows: “[45] In the same appeal, Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ (Eusoff Chin in agreement) said that an award could be reviewed for substance as well as for process: S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 BA-25-4-01/2023 It is often said that judicial review is concerned not with the decision but the decision making process. (See eg Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155). This proposition, at full face value, may well convey the impression that the jurisdiction of the courts in Judicial Review proceedings is confined to cases where the aggrieved party has not received fair treatment by the authority to which he has been subjected. Put differently, in the words of Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions & Ors v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, where the impugned decision is flawed on the ground of procedural impropriety. But Lord Diplock’s other grounds for impugning a decision susceptible to Judicial Review make it abundantly clear that such a decision is also open a challenge on grounds of ‘illegality’ and ‘irrationality’ and, in practice, this permits the courts to scrutinise such decisions not only for process, but also for substance. In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp. 410- 411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. This is how he put it: By ‘illegality’ as a ground for Judicial Review, I mean that the decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exercisable. By ‘irrationality’, I mean what can by now be succinctly referredto as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ (see S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 BA-25-4-01/2023 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp. [1948] 1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the courts’ exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe’s ingenious explanation in Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] AC 14, or irrationality as a ground for a court’s reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though undefinable mistake of law by the decision maker. ‘Irrationality’ by now can stand on its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by Judicial Review. I have described the third head as ‘procedural impropriety’ rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. Lord Diplock also mentioned ‘proportionality’ as a possible fourth ground of review which called for development.” S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 BA-25-4-01/2023 [16] Further, the meaning of error of law has also been explained in the case of Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Transport Workers Union [1995] 2 CLJ 748; [1995] 2 MLJ 317 in the following words: “Is neither feasible nor desirable to attempt an exhaustive definition of what amounts to an error of law, for the categories of such an error are not closed. But it may be said that an error of law would be disclosed if the decision-maker asks himself the wrong question or takes into account irrelevant considerations or omits to take into account relevant considerations (what may be conveniently termed Anisminic error) or if he misconstrues the terms of any relevant statute, or misapplies or misstates a principle of the general law.” [17] Founded on these principles, this court will consider this application for judicial review. Preliminary Objection [18] At the onset, the second respondent had raised a preliminary objection to this application for judicial review. The second respondent’s preliminary objection is that this application for judicial review is filed out of time and hence time barred. [19] In this regard, the second respondent cited Order 53 Rule 3 (6) of the Rules of Court 2012 which reads: “53. 3 (6) An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 BA-25-4-01/2023 when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.” [Emphasis added] [20] This provision states that 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. [21] The second respondent contends that the applicant in this application had been communicated of the decision of the chairman of the first respondent on 12.10.2022 as per the Order: “Rayuan ini yang ditetapkan untuk pendengaran hari ini dengan kehadiran Dr. Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Dr. Sara Ejaz dan Pn. Juriah bt. Yazid bagi pihak Perayu DAN Pn. Fathin Nadhira Bt. Kamarudin, Pegawai Undang-undang dan En Hazman Bin Mahayudin Pegawai Perancang Bandar bagi pihak Responden…” [22] According to the second respondent, the three months’ time period would begin from the date 12.10.2022. In this application for judicial review, the application was filed on 18.1.2023. In the event the date the decision is communicated is 12.10.2022, three months calculated from that date would be 12.1.2023. Hence, the second respondent argued that the filing of this application for judicial review on 18.1.2023 is out of time. As there is no application for extension S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 BA-25-4-01/2023 of time before this court to consider, the second respondent argues that this application is time barred. [23] In support of this contention, the second respondent cited the case of Mersing Omnibus Co. Sdn. Bhd. v. The Minister of Labour & Manpower & Anor. [1983] CLJ (Rep) 266 as reproduced below: “Leave should not have been granted to the appellant to apply for certiorari without the time prescribed in O. 53 r. 1A and neither sought an extension of time nor accounted for the delay to the satisfaction of the learned Judge within its explicit requirements. The learned Judge had no jurisdiction to do so.” [24] The applicant argues that the date to file this application runs from the date the decision was communicated to the applicant which is 21.10.2022 as per the stamp of acknowledgment receipt of the Form H dated 19.10.2022 attaching the Order. [25] The second respondent rejects the applicant’s assertion, contending that the applicant has not successfully refuted the claim that both the applicant and the deponent for the applicant were present when the first respondent made the decision on 12.10.2022. [26] In order to consider the preliminary objection by the second respondent, it is essential for this court to determine when the decision was communicated to the applicant. Was the date 12.10.2022 by the chairman of the first respondent? Or was the date 21.10.2022 as per the stamp of acknowledgment receipt of the Form H dated 19.10.2022 attaching the Order? S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 BA-25-4-01/2023 [27] Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 clearly states 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. [28] When was the decision first communicated to the applicant in this case? The chairman of the first respondent had on 12.10.2022 delivered the decision of the first respondent in the presence of Puan Fathin Nadhira Bt. Kamarudin, Pegawai Undang-undang dan En Hazman Bin Mahayudin Pegawai Perancang Bandar for the applicant. [29] In the affidavit in support of this application for judicial review in Enclosure 2, the deponent Encik Hazman bin Mahayudin had averred at paragraph 5.14 as follows: “5.14 Kemudian, pada atau sekitar 12.10.2022, responden pertama telah memperdengarkan rayuan responden kedua tersebut, dan antara lain, telah membuat keputusan-keputusan berikut: (a) Rayuan (oleh responden kedua) hendaklah dibenarkan dan Penolakan Kebenaran Meranancang seperti di Borang C(2) 15.02.2022 (oleh pemohon) hendaklah diakaskan dan digantikan dengan Kebenaran Merancang sehingga 31.12.2024; dan (b) Pihak perayu (iaitu responden kedua di sini) perlu mematuhi syarat-syarat yang akan ditetapkan oleh responden (iaitu pemohon di sini); (c) Tidak ada perintah kos; S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 BA-25-4-01/2023 Sesalinan perintah bertarikh 12.10.2022 tersebut adalah dikemukakan di sini dan ditandakan sebagai ekshibit “RR- 11”.” [30] According to Encik Hazman, the decision was communicated to the applicant on 21.10.2022. However, based on paragraph 5.14 of Enclosure 2 as reproduced above, it is clear that Encik Hazman was present at the hearing and the decision of the chairman of the first respondent. [31] This would entail that the decision would have been made known to the applicant through the presence of Encik Hazman at the hearing of the appeal on 12.10.2022. Consequently, this would mean this application which was filed on 18.1.2023 is time barred. [32] It is a well-established legal principle that adhering strictly to the stipulations of Order 53 rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 is obligatory. The compulsory nature of these requirements is evident from the use of the term “shall”, indicating that no exceptions are allowed unless an extension of time is formally requested and granted. [33] In Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor [2015] 3 CLJ 861, the court stated the following pertaining to the time period for filing of a judicial review application: “[119] Order 53 of the RHC 1980 sets out a specific procedure for an applicant to comply with in order to enable him to invoke the judicial review proceedings. When such explicit procedure is created, then as a general rule all applicants for such relief must adhere to the procedure, failing which S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 BA-25-4-01/2023 the application would not be entertained by the court. In the present case, there was clear non-compliance by the appellant with the imperative requirement of time set under O. 53 r. 3(6) of the RHC 1980. [120] It is trite law, that strict compliance with the requirements of O. 53 r. 3(6) of the RHC 1980 is mandatory. The mandatory nature of the requirements is clearly reflected in the usage of the word “shall” therein, which means that there can be no exceptions unless an extension of time has been applied for and obtained.” [34] Applying the precedent mentioned to the current application the Order was communicated to the applicant on 12.10.2022 in the presence of the applicant’s representative and the deponent for the applicant’s affidavit, preceding the formal service of the Order on 21.10.2022. Consequently, the timeline for filing the application for judicial review commenced on 12.10.2022, with the deadline set for 12.01.2023. Regrettably, the applicant in this instance filed the application beyond the stipulated time, specifically on 18.01.2023, without seeking leave for an extension of time from this court, as mandated by Order 53 Rule 3(7) of the Rules of Court 2012. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s application for judicial review. See also in the Court of Appeal case of Jitender Singh Pagar Singh & Ors v. Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan & Another Appeal [2012] 2 CLJ 165. S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 BA-25-4-01/2023 Conclusion [35] This court is satisfied that the decision of the first respondent was communicated to the applicant on 12.10.2022. Therefore, this court agrees with the contention of the second respondent that this application for judicial review should have been filed by 12.1.2023 at the very latest. As this application for judicial review was filed on 18.1.2023, it follows therefore that this application is time barred and should be dismissed. [36] This application is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Date: 9 January 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 BA-25-4-01/2023 Counsel: For the applicant Dato’ Manpal Singh Sacdev, Mastura binti Omar Tetuan Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Partners No. 1, 11th Floor, Wisma Havela Thakardas, Jalan Tiong Nam, Off Jalan Raja Laut, 50350 Kuala Lumpur. manjs8@mssmr.com +6 03 2698 7533 For the respondents Manoharan Malayalam & Anis Salihah binti Abdul Malek M Manoharan & Co. Advocates & Solicitors Suite C-5-5, Wisma Goshen, Plaza Pantai, Persiaran Pantai Baharu, 59200 Kuala Lumpur manomallaw@gmail.com +6 03 2283 1322 S/N gwHwi0NCn0mXLJLclbS0Hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AB-45A-4-10/2019

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) DAMANHURI BIN YAHAYA 2. ) BAZARIYAH TUL HASNA BINTI BAHARUDDIN

Criminal Procedure - Charges of drugs trafficking under s.39B(1) of DDA 1952 - Appeal by PP and Accused on the reduced charges - Whether charges have been proved - Drugs found in a room in house of the Accused - Whether there is exclusive possession of the drugs - Defence raised that there was a tenant who rented a room in the house - Alcontara Notice - Investigation Officer did investigate this allegation and found the person named Hisham/Sham - He never came to testify although attempts made to secure his attendance - Statement to police under s. 112 CPC tendered under s.32(1) (i) and (j) Evidence act 1950 - Statement did not mention anything about him being a tenant - Whether this has raised a doubt on prosecution case - Charges of trafficking reduced to possession under s.39A(2) and defence called

10/01/2024

YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=175a69ff-7420-459d-8752-7de05f6032fa&Inline=true

10/01/2024 09:53:34 AB-45A-4-10/2019 Kand. 100 S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /2laFyB0nUWHUn3gX2Ayg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal an 15 10 15 AB—l5A—I—10/2019 Kand. ,o,a,,:n2a o DALAM MAHKAMAH TlN§Gl MALAVA nwmc DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL mnzwnu FEREICARAAN JENAVAH N AB-45A—4—10/2019 DIDENGAR BERSAMA FERBICARAAN JENAVAH No: A545-3.10/1019 PENDAKWA RAVA v DAMANHIJRI am VAMAVA [NO. K.F.: s7Io2Mza5zn1] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN [1] pvhak Pendakwa Raye darn rayuan ha\as men plhak Terluduh‘ Damanmm lni ada\ah Alesan Penghakxman Mahkamah wm bag: kes rayuan oleh am Yahaya, lerhadap kepumsan Mahkamah VN yang mbual pads 311n2o2a .1. mana Mahkamah ms Ielah memmda 3 penuduhan pengedaran dadah berbaha)/N kenada pemmkan dadah berbahaya uleh Tenuduh di bawah Akla Dadah Berbaha‘/3 1952 [Am 324] (“Akta 324') [2] Pada asamya Terluduh (elah ammuh bersama-sama Terluduh Ksdua uanu wslennya, Eazanyah Tul Hasna Emu Baharuflmn‘ unmk 3 parluduhan mengedar dadah herhahaya den 1 penumman memmxr dadah herhahaya (dwbana danger: :34 Kanun Keseksaan) dan kes mdanarkan avas nombor AEv45A—AL10/2019 dan AE—45<3—1lJ/2019. w maFyEnnuwMun!qXzAy9 -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm m 15 [3] Semakan rekcd Mahkamah menunjukkan lzin Isiah dikemukakan uleh pihak pendskwaan kepada Vang Am Pesummaya Kehaklman yang mendengar xes sehehmu im pads permwaan kes. Pada 22.12.2021. Mahkamsh mmaklumkan oleh Timbalan Fendakwa Raya (way bahawa perluduhan lerhadsp Terluduh Kedua dllank bank kerana helnau lslah rnemngga\ dunxa ssmasa aaram lahanan reman an pemara pads 2.3.2021 akibal kemphkasu cam 19 (covnu Pneumama with mummgan tame) Mahkamah selemsnya mekapaskan dan membebaskan Tertuduh Kedua daripada semua perluduhan Fada 9.3 2022, TPR rnengemukakan Rskmsisi umuk penudumn bag kes No, Aa~4&3-we/2019 yang uaak dlkemukakan sebelum in? Vzin nag: Penudunan Ketiga pm: |erdapa( kesnapan di mana beral dadah dinyavakan sebelum mu sebagax Cannabis ubnr.II1,5B1.4 gr-m yang mans sspalulnya Ialah 1,a51.4 gram. [4] Fertuduhan asax bag: 2 kes yang dndallarkan ks acas Tertuduh adalah lemm danpada sepem berikul: AB 5»: no/2919 PERYUDUNAN wenrma 'Ba>mwn kamu vndn m Ok(Dber201E;nm lehxh kulang 2 no prumg haflampal an rumah N: M 73‘ same, Cnannkax Jenna‘ 34650 mpmg. an flalam daarnh Lam Mam dIda\am man Furakielah usdavau msmaedavdadah berbanayi sejumhh mm no.5 yum (25.5 V..." Hlmin .1... 53.9 gum uanmouynmmmnns). flan denaan nu kamu mm. mehnkukin xalu kaulahan m bawah ruksyan 39E(1Ka7Ak1a Dadah Berbanaya 1952 my mm dlhuknm m hzlwah sekrys» 39E(2)Akv.a yang Earns‘ psnrununm K:DuA ‘Eahawi kamu wad: to oktowzmfi Jim new kuranu 2 no Detany bsnemuat .1‘ nmuh Nu mm‘ aama, Changkal Janng, uasu nupmg, m dalam duarah Lanmanang, drdmzm negen Peraklelah dldanan manuadardndah bevbahayn wanu u.uump~:-mun. mum 132.: mm, darn danger: nu kamu um. mahkukan sam kzsaknhun a‘ hawah mxyen 39341 la}/ikla Dadah Bsmahaya 1952 yang balah dlhukum aw hawnh seksyen assmma yang um: “ 15 20 [19] TPR Elah mamchan supaya Parluduhan Kenga dikemukakan pmdaan sebzgai was an akiw kes pendakwaan bagi kes Nu AB-45A»A~ 1a/2019 oleh sebamerdapal perbezaan beral dalam perluduhan asal darn Laparan Kvma di P23. Walaupun Dlhak Dembelaan telah membanlah ksmasukan penudunan plndaan cersebun Mahkamah membsnarkarmya kevana ksaaangan SP3 dengsn Je\aS menerangkan bahawa bsral bsrsm dadah |a\ah 1,351.4 gram sepem da\am mn Mendakwa (P5) manaxava herat da\am perluduhan asal \aIlu1,5B1.4 glam dan Ucapan Femhukaan pmak pendakwaan (P7) adalah kesflapan manaip (dance! elm!) Mahkamah nerpandangan P7 mu Iidak bersflal men 1 kznada Mahkamah bemandmg P26 wmg dxsahkan ulen seorang nakar. DAFATAN DAN PENILAJAN NIAHKAMAH [20] D: akmr kes pendakwaan tugas Mahkamah ada\ah unmk memuluskan an axes. psnflaxan maxsunum seliap kelerangan yang tflkemukakan samada pmak pendakwaan (elah benaya membukfikan sualu kes prima «acre seperfimana peruntukan s. 1130(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ). suam kes prima lads akan dihuklikan apamxa pmak pendakwaan Ielah berjaya mengemukakan kelerangarrkelarangan yang bmeh dlpsrrayai [credible evidence) hzgi membuklwkan sefiap elemen kesmahan yang mpenuduhkan yang mane sekiranya gagal mpmahkan acau dljelaskan akan membawa kepada sabman. s 130(4) KTJ. [21] D: dalam kn FF v Mohd Rndzl Ahu Blklr [zonal 1 CLJ 451, Mahkamah Favsekutuan Ialah memuluskan: ‘I151 Forms gwdanuu ul me mun baluw. we wmmame ax flzlluws the Maps man mama ha Iakan by max mum at mu cm. :11 me pvuiocmiurfx an ny We close of ma pmsemmen‘s cm. suhlacl the swdence led by we Dmsaumnn m as many la a mmnum evamnlinn caremnry scrmlmse me cradibflhy 0! each nvmanmenmmvswunessas.1axsnn«a amum all naasonahlairwahancaslhal may he dvawn «mun mat awuanoe. w I175 ewdancs admni 01 two or more !Nl1\:FyEDnUWHLlnl§X2AW “ Nuns smm ...m.Mn .. used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm Vnferences. men dmw me mvenenoe mat \s most uavmname m we accused: nu) ask Yuursew «nu quemn n x can upon me accused u; make ms dsfenco and he elect: to vemawn snam am \ Wsparad la mnvm him on me avldance now below ms? mm aniwertn 1ha| qussfinn 1: '‘(es', men n vnma mu. cuss Ms 5 new mzdl am am me meme shmfld he caflsd lhhe answeris ‘No’ -nen, a Diima me case has ml been made aul and me aacused shamfl be acuumear [221 Da\am Kes B: chandlnn v PP [2005] 1 AMR 321. Hakim Augusline Pam manyaxakan: no 'A puma lama us: is an: um .. sulfimenl for -ne accused an answer‘ and me Imdmu: idduued must be such Ihan n can aniy he smmmmlcd by avndanca In nammv ‘me lame cl mm evnsenee nmsn, w unnenunea, he sMfic\em(n1ndu:e a slate alhehennal cne [acts as may stem am a statad \n the charge In mdevlo make a nnmnu me court must, anne am Mme Is prusscumns use, Imdunaka 2 pnimvn rvzluzlmn M In: mannuny and vellablmy av an we emdanc: adduced m delevmirve whelher all nne ehmenlx cuf the nflenua have been e:1nb\ished II the evidence is umubullad, nnd me accused remaxn si\enL he must be cnrwlcled. 1n.mon,mms« Io ha avbll-d at an and ollhe pro eunon-s can m I: wh-Ilwr mm Ii ilmlclcnl wldcmw to cmlvlcl Inn accnnd :1 hi mom to nmaln sllulh wn-an uansw-nu m nu aifivmafivv mun: man a prim: run but nu b--n mad: nut. ma. nquinl . Donxld-rlflnn M an (net at my reunnnble mm In me proI4lc\lI|Izn'A em, which If Imam, cannot lend In me nndllw at 2; gulll M . pllml I-=1. ans. hnving been nude om. [Penekanan dwambah] [231 E\emsn—eIsmen Denuduhan yang Perm dibuklikan olah pmak pendakwaan admah bahawa: n. Tarluduh memnunyaw jagaan alau kawakan ks alas dadah an lelsahul Sada mampunyal pengelahuan bahawa dadah Iersebul ada\ah dadah berhahaya, Vi. Dadah tersebul lersenaral dl bawah Akla Dadah Esrbahaya 1952 darn dengan berm sepeni yang dinyatakan dalam Denuduhan: dun 35 I. Tenudun le\ah mengedar dadah berbahaya (ersebul. .5 m 35 [24] Mahkamah Fersekmuan dalam kss PF v Danish all Madhavnn [man] 2 cu zns calan msmbmcangkan maksud parkalaan mmkan avau 'pL7sssssion' dan di anlara lain msmehk dan rnanyaoakan: ‘Thamvwn J In cm Full Lion V4 Vublic Fvouwlnr nasal 22 Mu 237. ..m ~pa«m......~ (mm. purpanl m nimmll I... invulvll ..a.....nm : Ill . which mm: nmhavifies hem: "custody/' or “cunIto\" . nn-1 :n.m.:..m M In: nature Mlhlna Pnssessed. As -a Dmessian men he am me la\|nwmg defimmn 1.. Stephen‘: D»ges|(91n Eamon, a aim, .n which me exclusive ebmem meulmned by Tay\urJ avDears:— ‘A mmam. Ihmn is am lo a Mm Fucunion cl: Plrson wllcn n. vs :0 muatnd with rum to n that n. nu Ilw pawns lo dul Whh n .. .»......a mu -xclu on man ulhnr pnnnn1,nndwhIn n. clrcumnxnols m such that n. my :1. prnummi to inhnd m do so in ma mud.‘ om u. mums n ma no msmm Dniuislon an establlshnd, Incluulnu cm ohm-m :1! nxclulrvu WWII In an I. wmn mm 1: .mm..n.a .. puslllnnn, not Ixcluuvn pumusm. 50 mum (av exclusive Dfiuusnn - [Penskanan dulsmbah] [25] Dmujahkan olsh pmak pambaxaan hahawa pertuduhan kauga bagu cannama mak holsh dipsnahankan man pnhek pendakwaan atas alasan terdapal pzrhezaan yang sangal kelara ancara dakumen sanksx, perluduhan dan kepulusan anallsa am. knm Perbezaan tersebul adalah sangat macenax den \idak aaa sebavang per-jelasan amen uleh mana— mama saksw Dendakwaan. Vlin (P5) dlkemarkan umuk mendakwa cannams sebenn 1,551.4 gram. waraubagannanapun ucapan pembukaan P7 oula memiuk kepada 1531.4 gram, Ferluduhan mennux kepada 1,5a1.4 gram manakala ketsrangan SP3 dalam PSSPS (m/s 5, para 124.1; pma menyatakan berat hersih hahan mmmman lsrsebul adalah 1,551.1: gram. Vsu m’ sini hukanlah heral Cannabis yang mmuun maslh .1. dalam kuasa pendzkwa vaya maxaxm izm F5 Ialapi adakah banal barang kes Iersebul my rnemai samek Defluduhan sama dengan barang kes yang durampas m rumah Terwduh N maFyt!nnuwMun:uxzAw ” ma Sum ...n.. M“ be used m mm a. mnn.ny mm; flan-mm VII anum pm an m [25] Dlhujahkan ‘uga bahawa terdapal perbszaan mazenal \‘1s\am identmkasw bavang-balang kes dadah lersebul. Jlks mbandlngkan amara sm den SP3, panmaxaan menga|akan (erdapal perhezaan keterangan anlara maraka yang liada pemelasan Perbszaan wama dan bentuk menimbmkzn persoalan adakah meveka menuuk kepada barang kes yang same seaem da\am penudunan. Menurm SP4 apa yang dilihal dan dwampas mesa serbuan adalah berwama ketulan hiiau, kelabu cerah dan pulm manakala spa pula menyacakan bat-ang yang mkemuxakan unmk anansa ada\ah xamlan den serbuk psrang den knstal ;emm Psgusmbela Tarluduh talah cube mencabar manmr dadah yang 1e\ah dilenma clan manalisa culeh 5:23. [27] Selelah meneliu keseluruhan kelerangan pmak pendakwaan ans standard uenilawan maksimum di bawah 5180(1) KTJ. Mahkamah bernuas hati bahawa uada pecahan ramai keleranqan bararlfl kes darivada mula drrampas oleh SP4 semnggaxan semua dadan lersebm auanma semma aanpaaa spa flan dsimpan m denam Setur Bar-any Kes o\sh SP1. Semua saxsx pendakwasn yang berkenaan wawlu SP4, SP7 flan spa lalah msngecam dsngan pcsml brang-narang kes dadah bsrbahaya den rampasan lam. Mahkamah mendapatn barang kss ada\an yang same semasa tangkaparl dan selerusnya manalisa man spa dan liada pecahan ramaian kelerangan barang kes dw permgkal JKM mga apabfla Ie\ah diperjelaskan u\eh SP3 mengenai nengasmgan dan penyinmanan barang kes Ini danpada bamng keS‘1ang|ain.lsu bahawa beraldadah yang saxan amyacakan da\am ueapan Pembukaan kes men plhak pendakwaan Jugs hdak bsrmeril xauana Ia uaak meng1kalMahkamah sedangkan dckumen ilu bukan ssbahagian danpada ketarangan Kes. rNI1\aFyEnnuwMun:gxzAw “ -ma am.‘ ...n.mn be used m mm .. anmmuuy mm: dun-mm VI] .num wrm 15 2; [28] Kslelangan SP3 duenma men Mahkamah W bahawa beret dadah dan jams dadah sepsfli dalam keempat-empa| penudunan dan um lelah dwbuktikan oxen nihak pendakwaan. D! dalam kes Munnsamy Vnngadnalnm v PP neon CLJ (Rip) 221, Mankaman Persekutuan |elah memutuskan bahawa ' .1ne Cour! rs en!/I/ed lo accsp! the opinion 0/ the expert of HS lace Va/ue, unless :1 rs rnnerantly incvedlb/s al the defence calls swdsncs /rv rebuttal by another expert (L7 Donlradicl Ins oyfmnn Sa lung as some credible awdanse is given by the chemist ta suppzzn nrs aprnmn, Mere is no necessity rm nrm to ya fnlu delar/s of what he did in the Iaborazory, stey by step,‘ Oleh yang demlktan, Mahkamah um rnenerimn kepulusan nnsu nnalisa yang dwbuat olen sr=3 berkallan dengan menmv dan kuanmi dadah berbahays lersebul dan mendapau elemen kedua da\am semua uenuaunan |e\ah dlbuklxkan oxen pnhak pendakwaan. Isu AKSES mm FENVEWA RUMAH rsnssaur [29] Eeralih kepada isu pem an darn pengelahuan mengenai bahan disyaki dadah Iersebul oxen Tenuduh, spa menyalakan apabfla behau dan pasukannya memzsukw ruman lslsebul, merekz terhldu bau ganja dn daVam mman Iersebul dan mendapafi Tenuduh dan xstennya berada di many lamu. D1 mung Iamu lersebul SP4 menjumpai sebahagian banang kes dadah dw alas meja (Penuuunan dw dalam Kes No. AB-45-3-1D/2019) dan pemenksaan laruul meruumpax sebahagwan lag: Darang fladah an muk sebe\an km sebelah dapur mmah lersehul. D: dalam bvlnk |ersahuI se\am harang—barang kes dadah, «um dijumpai sahuah bag jenama Hwgh Trai\s yang mengandungw alal pemmhang dan pisau yang disyakw \e|ah digunakan unmk memuhnng kenuran dadah SP4 jugs msnyna dckumen Amway yang Ierlera name Tenuduh den mu elekmk rvmah mu. ss-4 menmakan bahawa dalam pemernauannyn sebemm menysrbu masuk n r1\aFyEnnuwMun:gxzAw “ -we Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm wa mum pm 1a m an ke nunan flu, hahau mandapafi uaua mang lam yang masuk atau keluar dan mmah Ielsebul Selain Tenuduh sana Istennya yang dwangkap den barang—barang kes dadah divampas dan dmawa balik ke balai. liada nangkapan lain yang dmuan dx rumah |ersebu(. [30] Dalam kes Ibrahim Momma-1 & Anor. v PP [2o11I 4 cu 113‘ Mahkamah Persekuluan (elah memumskan,ama1a\am,sepembenkm: m u 1: an. an mat wsussmn \s an Impolhnl mgmd nl .n ma chug: av (mfflddna Limes: there ws mm evidence cl uamaxina, me masecmian must Dmve me Vngrediem al 'wmssson- am me ma: Judge mus! make an amrmaflve unmng cl 'D0ssess\on' before me pmsummtun M |ramckm9 under 5. 37(da) olmsAc1 an pa wwuked “ [31] umux membuklikan elemen mnikan, 2 unsur mama yang perlu wu[ud adalan actus reus mm perbumm rmliksn yang meruwk kepada jsgaan alau kawalan lizlkal tnnymcm custody at comm/) ke atss dadah berbahaya teraebuc dan elemen men: rea iailu Dengelahuan (ms/1: res possssmn): ruyuk kes chan Pun uon (supra). Oleh nu. Tsnuduh hendaklah mempunysx kawa\an alau yagaan ke am barang kss dadah berbahaya tersebul den bebas bsmrussn alau mengendahkan barang Iersehul sepenulmya (anpa pangnna«an nrang Vain (paws! I1! disposal za ma sxnluxiun al athsrs) Sena pads masa yang sama mempunyaw pengslahuan ks alas harang kes dadah berbahaya IersebuL Di dalam kes mu Hock Lzong v. PP [2003] 4 cu 764 Mahkamah Rayuan menyvaxakan: “n V: Ime that men: we: passesshn Vs an amen: anhe mm onvamnkmg. an: m Vs an anamanx nu ma mama! exannenx m amer cnmes wmm am» he enamnnea by mm: evidencs save In a can wnm an aomiafl expmsvy allrmts me ounnnusaun of ma uflevvcs. u v-as, Vlke he mans vaa -n omev ananm, m be smzbhshsd Ivy cmzumstarmal avmance In mhev wards n .; an mgledienl mm .a tn be inielmd hum me Imahly 0! me cwunmsunoes M a D-§nh:u|aHndwidua\na1e“ 1a In [32] Danpada perwngkat awal kes pendakwaan wag: pembelaan telah menimbulkan karekier seurang yang berrwama “Sham" alau 'HisIwam". SP4 davw awaw kes psndakwaan lawah menaflkan yang Tenuduh ads menwbemanu cennang ‘H’ ham’ yang rnenyewa bwlwk Ierrwpal twang kes dadah duurnpaw iawlu Bwllk 2 (32). cadangan «swan dikenwukakan kepada SP4 barwawa apabiwa pasukannya gagaw rnenangkap Hwsham/Sham maka rnsreka «swan rnenarwgkap Tenudun darw wslerirwya dan sslerusnya meraka berdua yang dwtuduh aw mahkamah. Peguambela Terluduh lelah merwgemukakan Ek um) 94 (semekan ssm nan mo 95 (gambar skrin maswn ATM yang lerlara nama Hisnam AK-A Enlevprise) semasa sesw sambung hicala hebsvapa hulan kemudwan spa lewah menyalakan bahawa mewawuw maklumat lersebul bewwau lelah dapal mengesan snarn/Hisharn dan nama sebenamya aualan Muhammad w<an-aruw Hisham bin Muhammad Jwlam, sawwnan kad pengenalan panama ini wuga lelah dwarrwbww awen SF51PIO0A| [33] SP4lelsh dwsoalbalas s: on wuga masa dwbawa balwk ke IPD Tammg telah merrwberwkan makwuma| mengenai Iersahun swapakan Hnsham yang menyewa bwlik J' Esrksnaan maklumatmsrwgsnaisham(hukan usnamysanawa saya seluwu dan bukannya berkerwaarw dwa menyewa bwwwk Iersebul [34] spa puwa semasa dwpsriksa bales msnyatakan bahawa beiiau (ahu afla penyewa an rumah Tenuaun necapw Iwdak pamah bequmpa dengan psnyewa lerssbul Ssksw nu ‘uga menyacakan bahawa semap aamang a.1ik—|>a.-auixnya mempunyai kuncw mman Iersehul yang mempakan mmah pusaka aman bapa rn-anaxa Ramaw saudara mara mzreka bevkunjung ke ruma semasa muslm perayaan SP61idak Iahu sama wN11waFyEnnuwMun:gxzAw " -ma sanaw n-nhnrwwww be used m mm a. annwn.wwIy uwwnws dun-nnnl wa arwuwm wnxw 1; In 15 ada penyewa (erssbul ada dslang semula ke rumah nu salepas Tsnumm dnangkap. [351 Kelerangan SP5 wga aaram pemenksaan was Ielah berseluju bahawa belxau lahu dafipada bapa Imnya (Tenuduh) yang sebuah bflik d1 mmah Iersebut disewa kepada orangIa1n.SP5 menyaiakan umk ibu den bspa Imnya man mm dalam gambar P2466 dan kemuman sn=5 mempsrbelmkan kenyanaannya bahawa. ‘ 1:5 Says Dun um um samada msmkz uduv an sana atzm Dun ndak sebab ma unng memang Udurdl depan semlu um um muk ke Iak say: mu mm sm rasa um um ma guna umuk mun ham, pikfil bniu ke ape says Iak «arm Tetam mam saya dis (AK guna am. Eukan mum mm u. 35:: say: Ink lahu sehuh says 13!-ung bank ks sans Mankamah: Kamu kale ma mug mm Murdl depan SP5 Ya kalau mm mm memang aha menu hduvm dapan tehvlsyvu -1| mung lama Kalnu kamx m KL pun um. mac <:a\I man an memanu ma omng lmurm mu wga Sevshu says amn um msveka kat luir dallpada mum in Se saya wax tam: man: yang ma mm mm. mum‘ [as] Keterarlgan SP8 ada\ah hahawa selelah beberapa Vama mencari Iermasuk sehingga ke camemn Hxghlands, SP5 (slah dapal bsnumpa Sham, mengambfl gambar KP dan mengamml ketarangsn an bawah s. 112 KAJ Pada harl terskhir permcaman dx penngkat kes pendakwaan (TPR sebelum nu msnyalaksn Sham akan hadir memberi kelerangan) Sham Indak muncul. Sehallknya pendakwaan lelah mengemukakan ke|erangan me\alui 5:211 unluk menuruukkan usaha telah dmuac uleh Nlzwiytznnuwwnagxznyg 13 um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! 15 2a 15 an pmak Dolvs unmk mengesan snam ax alamal rumahnya av Melaka. ID yang dwkemukakan olen saksl ml (F95) menumukkan cuhaan unluk menyerahkan sapina dx alamat yang sama bsrbslas kali dalam lempuh bebsrapa minggu sebemm tarikh cayaknir parbmaraan Oleh i\u. pihak pendakwaan le\ah membua| pemmnunan untuk memasukkan rakamsn percakapan snam sebagai bukli unluk menyokang kes pendakwsan. Wa\aupun levdapal hanlahan daripada pmak pernueuaan, Mahkamah membenarkan Dermohonan TFR dw bawah 5.32100) dan up Akia Kelerangan 1950. Rakaman percakapan yang mambu aleh spa pada 25.1.2023 dllandakan sebagal Imm. Telapx apa yang menglwavankan Mankamah xarah swa selelah hersusah payah mengssan snam Iersebul, rangsung (idak beflanya Kepada Sham da\am Imm umuk pengesahan sama ada bsnar dia Ielah menyewa bmk dw rumah Terluduh Dada (shun 2018, hsrapa bayaran sewa bihk, klwsusnya bwik di mana dadah mjun-paw uan apakah kaivannya dengan dadah yang diyumpan 1ersebu|. Olen ‘nu, Mahkamah mendapali Imm inv langsung Iwdak membanlu kes plhak pendskwaan, mzflah menimbulkan keraguan apakah (uman spa mengambil rakaman Demskapan yang sangal Ilngkas terssbul. Kewwudan Sham/Hxsham yang dlkalakan penyewa hmx as mana ayumpa. dadah dalam perluduhan dan “keenggsnan' Sham/Hwsham unluk tampwl sebaga\ aaxsx an Mahkamah Ie\ah msnlmbmkan keraguan Ierhadap K5 pendakwaan hagx wsu pemmkan darn pengedalan dadah Di dawn kes sunya Jalallg v PP [2015] 5 CLJ ea: mahkamah menyafakan: -[91 The mnyuflhainvasflgalars wnnnnvarmgalemslacliamlu called an ma t-Mdanee ma pmlca us inve:1ig-mm! are pubhc olfiuels. Their onnoem must be In Vnvasugme me (am wilhnul learardavuur, .a max: wmwfloers may be hmugm Immune A mmvlexed .nmugam.n a ma Mal Includes Invewgation 01 Inc: delences Inst emerved Vmm Ihe mvssllslahun $um\nvss|\§a1Ion mayelvmnatethe gaps orweaknessaesa and provide wbsuneelabeinstud agaunaunaaavancmman raliedlms !Nl1\:FyEDnUWHLlnl§X2AW " ‘Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe used m vs-W ms nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm wa mum Wm! as m an rs mponam as an ensures that Kcharge: 2.: m be pravenaa, mam ave m wens my weak Hnks m the prosecution case \n lhe wny nl . su<:<:u;4u\ pruxecu|Ion' [37] Terluduh msngaoakan kelerangan sm dan SP7 lidak buleh mparcayax, namun Mahkamah mzndapali Saks! pans in! adalah Mm da\am kenerangan mereka hahawa serbuan dmuan pads 1u.1u,2ma dan bukan 11 mzms sepem cadangan pmak pemberaan Namun‘ kewujudan Sham mi «em dmerikan 'AIconIara nouns“ flan ma bukanlah seorang karekrer rang diada-adakan. [331 Kelerangan lam yang dikemukakan uleh puhak pendakwaa ah Ifikaman percakapan |3|sn Tarluduh m bawah s.12 KTJ yang jugs dnmasukkan an bawah s.a2(1) ma Katerangan 1950 dun dnandakan sehagai P93. walaubagamnanapun, la mak dapal membancu kes pendakwaan sebab ada kekelwruan dalam zawaparmya. Soa\an dilanyakan kepada wslen Terluduh sepenl benkur -s samsn POMS PERVKSA an DALAM RUMAH mmu ram mun m ATAS nus Mam numuxm xonx 95) PEKET mama DAN on mm PERTAMA sssauw KW DALAM HUMAN aamsnm DAPUR m pzxzr pusvxx msvm mum HEROW, L10) PEKET FLASTIK msvm monmsms MEYH am 3 xzruuw sum um DALAM use ATAS KHL nu KEFUNYAAN SIAPA7 J: mum rsnszaw ADALAH xzpuuum SAVA sum: sgu um nu uzsucnxu KEPADA Poms, um nmk mm APA- un- [39] saaxan dan jaw:-span yang pahng permng dalam P93 Iersebut‘ Ierdapal kekelwruan pada pandangan Mahkamah mi apama Is bcleh dwbaca darn dilahamkan dengan pe\baga\ care um boleh d\bua| perbandingan dengan ayat lnggerls yang mahsyur mu “Eats shoots and leaves’. Oleh flu Udak banyak psmmbangan yang bnlah diherlkan uleh Mahkamah mengenai Ketemngan VII Nmafytinnuwmunlgxznw 1“ um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 15 mzrununm xsnm ‘Enhawa kamu pm 10 OkInhev201B pm mar. kurang 2 an pafizng henampfl a. runner! No m< 12, saw 5, Chamkat Jermg. 34351: mom di damn daamh Lam\Ma1zn§‘d\dalam new Peviklalahmdavanmanuedardadah bemahaya am Cum: 1 submit mu grim‘ flln flangan Ilu kamu tslah malakukan salu kesalahan an hawah seksyen ’A9B(I}1a)AI<Ia Dada?-1 Bart-z.ahayn1s52 yang wan dmuwm dl hawah seksyen assL2mx\a yanw sauna.“ Aa45:»w/20w PER1uDuHAN mam: 'Sahawa kamu Dada 10 Oklnberzmajam lebih kumw 2 00 mm banampal m Iumah Nu. «xx 7:, aanue,cnangxaue.ma ueso mama. an dalam daerah um. Milan ,m dzflam n-gall Punk talan dmapail mamhk daflah bsmahayi xam. Eanmhli ubual um: ma... flan dengan Ilu Iumu (Blah mdakukan rain kesahnan m bawah seksyun e Akva Dadah Eemahaya 1952 yang boleh aanum. as biwah sauyan ]9A(‘\)Ak\a yang uma “ [5] {Ne}: yang dem an, Vzin yang baru bag! ka4iga.uga perluduhan an bawah a 395(1) Akla 32A serla Rekuisisi dlkemukakan dengan pindaan dengan memmnng perkalaan “bersama seorang yang lelah mamnggal duni BAZARIVAH TUL HASNA BINTN BAHARUDDVN No. KF:64D115- 0a—5<0u' dan ‘mum bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan". lzin ditandakan sebagai P3, P4 dan F5 masmg-masmg aan pammunan plndaan sebsgal PEA, Pea dan ec hagi kes Na. AB—45A—A—10I2019 Rekunsnsx bag: kea Nu. A545-3-10/2019 sshagaw P1 dan perluduhan plndaan sebagax F2 da\am kss (arsabm Keduadua kes mbuac permnhonan u\eh TPR Immk ' ' saksi dan laklaalakla adalah sama Pmakpmak akan dirujuk sepem ax permgkal permnaraan di Mahkamah Tmggi. arakan bersama memandangkan saksI- [5] Perhlcaraan mmulaksn dx hadapan saya paaa 25 10.2022 aamngga 14.7.2023. Plhak Dendakwaan memanggu ssramax 11 orang saks nluk an oVefI ninak- pihak flan kss dflsfapkan Imtuk hujahan hsan pads 15 5.2023. Wa\au msmhukflkan kasnya. Hnqahan Esrmhs seierusnya Nl1\aFy¥DnUWHUnl§X2A‘1I 3 ma Smnm-nhnrwmlxeusedmmmhenrW\nnH|yM1Msdun-mmwanF\uNG W m 15 [401 Ksmball kepada kss Danish Madhavan (supra), sayz marumk kepada perenggan yang henkul :1: mm Mahkamah Persekuluan menyavakan. 1171 m. ma: av axduswlly vaaum ... Ihe meaning a! ‘pessass\on' m cnminil law .5 one ol me elemems necessary In cunsmme possessxun, As mum ssh m Leow Name Lrm 1/ my (195511 ms 53: n is nflnn um um ‘yntnumnn runs! In axenulvr. run. I: amuuuous, Pnsnsslon n .n at 5 -xclu ». m m c1:und.l’wn or am: u-mm m y 5. pint pnmuxm M chnltels, whelmr immclm or camnbnnd. Yhn xcmslw clement of pas-esuan mulls am the wssessor or Dosuiwn [can an ruwnr Io -mun. mm nmonsnon. enmmun uilllu wvu-rw Custody nkamss may be ml: ar ‘mm and n has mg same element M a)nc\ud\ng mm Ths main dislincfinn benween cuslody and Dossessbn Vs that a cuslntflan has no: me power or msvosm. The ilalamenl mat ‘nossessiun must he exausw Vs ollen due to wmusm m the lacl m be pmvud wan me menu: by wmch n me be wuvcd ms emnum In keep (ms dwnnnnn dsafly m mmd,::ps1:IaUy when applylng presumption; llflflnce line elements needed to an-mmm pox -mm. an ' (Inn Dossusslcm. Sn much fmlxcluslvu yoanulon. [Penekanan dflambah] [41] Eerdasarkan kelemngan yang dvkemukakan uhah pendakwaan, Mahksmah mendapali Tsnuduh sebsgai man mrmah mempunyaw kawalan dan .agaan ke alas mmah (ersebm Namun, elemen eksklusfl pemilikan dadah berbahaya dalam perluduhan uaak dapal dibuklnkan lemadap Tenuduh. Kawa\an darn ;agaan exskmsu Iemadap rumah Iersebu| iuga gagal dihuklwkan men pemiakwaan dsngan pihak kegagalan msgecualikan akses urang lain lemadap mmah pusaka yang mam. man Tenuduh dan wsterinya, Ada\ah ielas bahawa spa dan SP5 aaaran sake: yang berkepenlingan oleh sebab pemlian dsrah/hubungan Kekeluargaan dengan Terluduh. spa |erulamanya am: sebagal N!1\aF:I¥flnLlWHUnlgX2AW 1’ um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm In :5 2; wasew apabua saksx im mencurigal keselumhan kejaman yang henaku dx rumah (ersehm pad we den 11 10 2013 sedangkan pihak polis nanya merualankan |ugas mereka di smu Namun. kexeuangan samaaksi pendskwaan In? sendm yang mengesahkan bahawa Iemapal seurang penyewa an rumah mu sedangkan Inn bercanggah dengan kelerangan swe nan SP4. Tetapx kslerangan mengenal penyewa bllnk mu max umuac permuhunan Lmluk mxamarxan aleh pmak pendakwaan daripada Nata Kekerangan flan ulzh mu‘ masm kaka\ sahagal falda dalam Kas lnl [42] Mengguna pakal prinsip pemuikan uawarn kes Danish Madhavan (supra), Manxaman lelah membual dapalan (akla bshawa mrnan Iersebul dw bawah kawalan dan jagaan Tarluduh (staph ma uaak mempunyaw “exclusive power to deal mm ma drugs’ In! ke.-ana- 1 Jnka nun ada saudara mam yang namng ke rumah ilu alau ada kuncl mmah nu, msmka max hnggal di silu: n. Cadangan Tsnuduh kepada saksx pendakwaan jugs bukanlah |enumpu kepada saudara mara meraka yang menyswa blllk lslapi snam yang menyawa umx flu; svs msnumpang semasa bahk berclm 1—2 kali setahun semasa musim pelayaan dan Iidak hduv dw mum m mana dadah dijumpai, dun w. Jika pun sernua dadah mu msunpan (diedar) oleh sham, Mahkamah mendapau Terluduh mempunyai kawawan den jagaan tetapx bukan sxduslve passassmn ks atas dadah yang dijumpai da\am rumah pusaka nu. [43] Mengambll km kelerangan SP4 dan SP7. Mahkamah mendapali ada\ah musxahu ‘renudun dan Islsnnya husk menuum bau game yang !Nl1\:Fy¥flnLlWHUnl§X2A‘1fi -nma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm wa mum pm .5 begun kual pada nan kqadxan den sabemmnya. Semasa permcaraan. Ildak ada pun sebarang keterangan a|au cadangan banawa Tenuduh seomng yang caml deria ban acau sedang selsema pads masa hari kejadisn sehingga mm mencmm hau gama yang kual caraamn. Pads hemah saya peguambela Iefluduh nanya membual andaian bahawa saya Iidak dapal mencium bau garua semasa sayz menehu harang Kes lelsebul. saya mendapall baunya udak mu lapi rnasm ada ban dfstincl yams levsebul P\sau yang masm ads kesan cannabis resrn juga menunjukkan \a ham digunakan untuk memotong kstulan cannatns lersebut dan adanya plasfik kasang KscH yang banyak memberikan unierence bahawa wa akan dibungkus semula. Namun, xa Ixdak dapal dlkankan bahawa renuaun adalan orang yang mamhuat psmhungkusan semula uaaan ke dawn pekel maslik pwasnk new [441 Seperkara wag.‘ ada\ah fidak logxk dadah yang umumnya lahu adalah bamflaw hnggw (sebab Va barang yang diharamkan) akan dmnggalkan bagim sahaja cu mmah nu oleh Sham lanpa niat unluk dia kembali samuaw ke aim, nxa benar aaaan Ilu kepunyaan Sham. Inn mernbawa mferenue nanawa Tenunun (elah msmbenarkan I membvarkun dengan pengelshuan lemang barang saxan nu berada d1 aawam rumahnya Kenapa Tenuduh Iidak mawapuman dadah yang berada gs da\am nnnannya den awal-awe! lag? memben kelevangan Iamang Sham kepada puhak polls, sebaliknya selepas ditangkap ham ma hendak mannnmnkan lsu Sham Mahkamah berpandangan Tenuduh hnfleh sanaya membuang dadah tersebul dsnpada rumahnya supnya dis Ildak dikatakan lerlibal dengan dadah ilu Adakah dla memerlukan kebenaran Sham untuk rnelupusluan dadah tarsebufl Oleh nu Mahkamah mendapafi bahawa Tenuduh adaiah “camplfcff atau «eninac dengan dadah yang dljumpaw (ersebul apabua mamtnarkan dadah dalam kuanlm yang banyak rNI1\aFytznnuwMun:gxzAyg 21 -ma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm ms annnnn mm: dun-mm wa anum wrm In 15 dlsvmpan dalam am .11 rumahnya. Mankaman mendapali mi admah saxu wagal omlssmn an plhak Terluduh dan Iergmong kepada perbuansn yang sa\ah dan holen dlpsnuduhkan [45] Mahkamah merviuk kepada perunmkan s.32 Kanun Keseksaan dw mana wa menyalakan. 32 Words Iafsmnn to acts mcmde mega: amissbns Vn every nan cums cnaa, exoenl wfleve 3 camriry m|an|mn appsals rmm ma canum, wards wmch my in acts dons exlend mm In Mega! omissmru [45] Mahkamah juga perm memberi pemauan ke alas bentuk dadah lerhbal dan Cara wznya dihungkus dengan ]um\ah pakebpakat yang banyak yang meruadikan mankaman um bsrpendapal ianya hukarflah bag! Iuwan pengunaan sandln (Dnq Ah Chum v. PF man] 1 ms 131: [1931] 1 MLJ sop. wawaubagannanapun, elsman pengecuahan akses kepada rumah hersebul yang max dipenuhn oleh pendakwaan [47] Dmam kes ml juga Iardapet 2 mfsrancs da\am perkara mengenai Sham eexapx Mahkamah mandapali Va lidak memihak kepada pendakwaan ‘am; uari aspek kegagaxan SP8 untuk rnanganubxl percakapsn Sham dengan «am dan comprehensive: Ta! Chal Koh v. Public Prosecutor [1943] 1 LN$121:Pub||c Pm:-cmnvv. Knmln mu Soeb[1974] I LNS11 , 1974]1ML.J un) [45] Eavdasarkan keadasn beg Jenama Hwgh Tans yang mengandungx dadah sena dadah yang diwmpaw alas ma.a berhadapan kaauaaaua Terluduh dan Mahkamah mendapan Terluduh mampunyaw pengelahuan mengenax ennya Sena bau ganja yang kuat pada masa nu. 2; IN r1\aFyEnnuwMun:gxzAw "Nuns smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm ma nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm VI] mum wrm m 15 m dadah yang dlslmpan dalam hxlik dx mman nu: PP v Lin Lian Chen [(9921 1 DLJ 235 (RIp)dan P: In Bin Dndon (20031 e MLI. [491 Walauhagawmanapun, msshsbkan plhak pendakwaan tidak boleh exclude access rumah ilu kepada sham, Mahkamah max boleh mengatakan Terluduh yang mempunyav rmlnkan dan kusss unluk drspose dadah lersebul Perkara mama walah Tertumm mampunyal kawman dan [sgaan ks alas rumah nu dan pangaoanuan mengenai dadah yang dwumpsn Jarak dadah dawn kolaak belwama pul hadapan Tefluduh dan annya cubs dlkailkan man pmak pendakwaan dengan miHkan dadah dalam bmk nan salerusnya hers: dadah msmmbulkan anggapan di bawah s 37(da) Namun, Mahkamah lenkat dengan kepulusan kes—kes Ierdahulu mengenaw isu kswuwdan orang Lam yang berkemwlgkinan besar adakah man punya dadah bemahaya dalam kuanmi yang banyak dslam bmk E2 di rumzh Izrsebul. [so] Femlllkan Ie\ah dipumskan sanagax kawa\an slau jagaan din mempunyai pengexanuan mengenai dadah. Pangacanuan baleh moemp dsnpada vakra darn keadaan sekeming Pangaiahuan luga holsh umnux ms\a\m anggapan smulori Perunlukan s. 37(d)Ak1a 324 aaaxan: Any person me Is Vnund to have had .n ma cuslndy or under na comm! zrmmnu whalsosvev oumammg any nanaanma drug sllafl, Amhl nna cnnmary Vs pnwsa, ha uaa-naa «n have been wv amaaasxan alsuch dma am shafl. unm Ihe ucnhily .a anma, be aaamad m have known ma name cl such drug: [51] Damn kes Mahkamah Persekuluan. Francis Dkechukwu Nwannwov PP. cmnlnal Appul No.: 5-us(m)-631-12/2019 Mankannan Persekuluan celan mamumsxan bahawa: 1211 we have m|ad manna pnname mere nossessmn on (him wunmn ma menu! elsmem or menu raa and xnawvaaga ov me name aims mmg rnlzwawtznnuwwnzgxznyg 1. ma sanaw n-nhnrwm be used a van; me nrighuflly mums dun-mm wa mum wrm wm nu| Incflmmate the pouesmn sum me uhyxicm and mm: elements musl he fumflad m establwsh posnssmn m Ihe criminal mmext [Sea 5:36 bm Vbramm u PP[W5B]1 ML! 55, cm Penn Lson v PF [1956] MLJ 2:7} [221 we «mm m (ha Appenanrs defiance man we uc had puma-nary s lalled m ippruciala was mac mare pmxmvty wllh ma dangiraus drug: wuuld not sumne ha nmve the cove emmanl A71 cuslndy and cnnlrol [on] u war ourlsclly mixed by me no mul lne huh ac me wanna uuntanluzn was max mam wns 3 maleda\ wan m we PP‘! casa m=\ cvsalzd m a uascnibla chum by reason at me nan-calhng n12 maturul witnesses‘ nama\y, um: um mam and On:/ska‘ mm. ov whum mm me same surname Okalar. Ha my uonwunrsd um Appelanfs mmnrmen mac S.1I4(g), Evldencs Au ought «a bi mvukzfl hr the sum nnrmallmg hm dechnad |u do so an anmum M me clmummanoes sunuundmg Ills Is recovsry an the drugs mm. we have advened ta Acmmlng tn lhn us‘ me navvltwu at the PP‘: case was mmpma wnmm mam being cause and (hsywem nnmecassaty w\lnessssIooumn¥ela ms narviflvn Nellherwele (hey present an ms scene al orarvurvd me mm: ma vmhzh wg amem Vs an Important «am Nor can llmr rwn-caflmg leave 3 gap ‘)1 me PP's 10 nalrahvs [411 w. .p....=..n. m. min yrinclnli Dual mu onui u on Gin P» In cxcludn m. pnsnlblllly nhncesa Ivyoth-rs In an plaou maumry. [Sn Ahdnllnh mm: hln Vnwll V Pl: [12:35 2 mm 11.3: mm M in may, in is new Iawlhal lhe duty on In: up .. nniy m pm-iuoe m cm 3H 25 whnesses necessary for the unfolding ac lhe nanmive Beskies mat. the PP has me dlrcrsuun as m which mines: m can. 1.. the Vandmark cass M n Chane mm V pp [1955] 2 ML! 533. Edgar Joseph Jr‘ FCJ speaking cum. rc vamalkld ‘On the mm mm, m .5 clear Vaw that In: pmbecunnn must have m mun nl wunesses lmm mm statements havs bean «am 30 mm may have . msmeuan wnemsno can mm 1:! nm (San Teh Lee Tong V pp [195a] MLJ194).l'hald\scmbun.huw:ver,mu:lbe exercised having regard \n the \n|evea1s u1]us1nue‘wrm;hmc\ud:s being lalr m the amused (pa! Lam s-my m V. R V cm [1965] 3 Au ER He .51 D12 9551, 2 ma me an p 1u35|,an-1 m can witnesses essenlm :9 me unluldwvu at :5 ma navulm an man (he pmsscmian case .5 based. wnelhsrmz efla:1 at lhalrtarsumnny 5 hr nr ngenrm me pruswuhon (purLard Rocha m cm cm“. my Cuum:\I case at Senevnralne V E11936] 3 MI an as .1 p u, appksd :1 R V Nugx-.n\|1s771 : M an 562, [M711 wm mr [Penekanan dilambah] srNI1\aFyunnuwMun:I;xzAyg 15 «ms smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! m 2!: an [52] Kalemngan~ke(emngan yang dmapam aleh Mahkamah ml memadai an psrmgksl kes prima facis iamu sesualu keterangan yang credible atsu bnleh mpemayav Kelenlngan m adalah mencukupl unluk Mahkamah .m memanggll Temmuh umuk members um bagi perluduhan m bawah seksysn (BN2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dadah berhahaya dalam 3 psnuduhan tersebul din 1 perluduhan kakal dw bawah 5 3QA{1)AkIa. Fsnuduhan pindaan mbuac oleh Mahkamah di bawah perunlukan s 155 KTJ Ie\ah tflbacakan kepada Terluduh dan ma mengaku mask bersalah avas pefluduhan pindaan Setemsnyam Terluduh (emu amerangkan dengan 3 pmhan unluk lu mermliki kesemua kaemua membela dmnya dan me umuk memhen kelerangan secara bersumpah. Perblcaraan mcanggunkan ke carikh yang way. untuk psrsadiaan kes Tarluduh membela dmnys. KE§ MPULAN [531 Berdasarkan uapaoan-aapaoan di alas, Mahkamah lelah mendapau plhak pendakwaan le\ah gagal membukukan kes prime lame bahawa Tenuduh Iehah mengeaar dadah sepe slam 3 perluduhan lersebul. Namun, Mahkamah telah memanggil Tsmlduh unluk membela dlrinya alas penuduhan pmdaan merml dadah barbahaya a. bawah 5 39A(2) manakam 1 pemmuhsn kekal m bawah 5.39/1(1) Akla 324 lersehul. Benarikh pad: 10 Januarl 2024 / fix! NOOR RUWENA EINTI MD. NURDIN Pesumhjzya Ken. man Muhkamah Tlnggi M: nya, Tnlplng IN !1\aFyEnnUWMUn:gx2Ayq 27 -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. nrimruflly mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! 1a 15 m Eag' Emu Pondnkwn Rayg: TPR Sully Chay Mel Llng Feiahat ‘flmlnlan Fondnkwa Rnya Negeri Ferak, Talplng Bngi gmak Tamndu . Dam‘ Rosli Kamarud n, E Muhlmmud Znhiar Rosll 5. En. Muhammadza Ros Ttman Rosli Kamaruddin a. Ca. Skudai w !Z\aFyEflnLlWMUnlgXZAyg -ms Sum M... M“ be used m van; M nugvuuly mm; “Mm. VII mum puns! 15 15 as hagaxmanapun‘ ia «max dapal dHa\ankan paaa larlkh lersebul kerana keadaan kesvhalan peguam mama Tertuduh yang lidak msngizlnkan den ditetapkan semma nada 21.9.2023. secexan msndsngar hlqahan an, kes dnanggun unmk kzpulusan m aklw kes pendakwaan Pads 31.10.2023, Mahkamah ini Iemu memberikan kepulusannya dw mane Denuduhan ass! bag :4 kesalaharl per-gedaran dadah berbahava d n nda seneni benkul Aa45A4.1o«2nw Psmunuum panmu 'EaMwa Kamu Dada an Oklnber zma Jim Vahm kurung 2 on Delarm hanampal m mmah No JKK 73‘ Batu 5. cnanakamnng, mac l'aIp1m_;,dIda\am daarah um Maiang. m flnlam Hagen Peak «em. dndnpnn mermlvkw dndah helbihaya semmlah mu 30.5 mm (23.3 Irum Hemln dun 51.2 lrum Monemrylmorpnmuy. nan devvuan nu Kama ma» melakukan sam k..a\m.. .1. mm am,-an amzum um». Eilbahnya 1952 yang mm cflhukum ax bnwah semen yam: same." Psmunuum xsmu ‘Bzahawa mm. pads on ommznmam Iehlh kurang 2 an Denna henemnal aw mmah No JKK 13, Belu a. Chznskal Jenny‘ was TaIp1M.d|da\zm duarah Lavu| Macang. m dalam Hagan Psvak mm ampan msmmm dadah belbahaya nun Mrlhnmpllillmlnl gum :32: gram, flan dervgnn I|u kamu lelah melakukan salu mananzn a. lzawah semen swat Aklz Dsdah Eelbahaya 1252 yang amen mhukum dl bawah seksyln my ram ' Pzmununm KE1lGA -sanawa kzmn pad: wu Uklobevznls pm mum kurang 2 no pevang hansmpal m Iumah No JKK 13, am 5, Chanukal Janna‘ man Ynlpmg, .1. flahm diam?! Laml Malnng. m mam neqen Pea-ak (emu dhapan mem\lvk\ dndah belbahaya mum cum-ms mm: 1551.: min‘ darn aangan nu kamu halah melakukan salu Isahnan m nmn sokiyan 392142» Akla Dadah Eamahaya 1252 yang mm. dmukum a; man saksyifl y-IHE um ‘ [7] Ferluduhan di bawah s39Am hagi kes No Aa«45.:~1u/2019 dikekahcan, severusnya Mahkamah msnerarvgkan 3 p han kspada Tenuduh unluk memberi kelemngan dan kesarmya mm Terluduh melmhh untuk membsnkan ketsr-angan secara bersumpah den akan memanggll a m 2:: or-ang saksx umuk membela dmnya ms keempa:-empm penuduhan Iersebu! dan Mahkamah menelankan tankh unluk sambung bicara av penngkal pemnsxaan. No|is Rayuan mvaixxan maslng-masmg pada 14.11.2023 and 15.11.2023. Alas psrmnhonan TFR, kes W (elah ditangguh perbicaraarlnya samsmara menunggu rayuan flan rayuan balas dldsngar di Mahkamah Rayuan KES PIHAK PENDAKWAAN [5] Samasa permcaraan, susunan saksw-asks: psndakwaan adalah sepem berikul. SP1 — Koperal Nuazam Em Hussam (Feruaga Slor Earang Kas); SP2 7 Saqan Vusri Bin Hashwm (Jumgamhar); spa . Faznur-Alwlah emu Mahmud (Ahlx Kuma), spa -lnsDekmrZuIki1|iB\n AriNIn(PeQawa1Serbuan)‘ SP5 - Zuraidah Emli Zmkeflw (anak liri Tenudu SP6 - Jamllah Bmfi vanaya (kakak Tenuduh): SP7 - lnsp. Mahalhlr Em Han Rasmd @ Mohamed (Awgola Sarbuanj, SP6 — Insp. Tayalan A/L MuKNruland\Sen/aI(Psgawa1FenylasaI): SP9 — lnsp Nor Faezah ElJaa1sr(Psgawa| Persksm Femakapan); SPID — Jacquehne Eemice A/P Juhn Eusou (Pegawai Sains. JKM); SPI1 — sarian Mohamed Fadhil Em Omar |Penyerah Sapina) [9] Pada 10.10.2015iam 1 oo Delany SP4 berada m Pejabac Narkolrk IPD Talplng lelah menenma salu panggilan Celefon orang awam me\a\u\ lemon psjabal mengenal aklmli sspasang suami Islsn yang nnggal an No 73, Batu e‘ Simpang Changkal Jenng, Taming dnsyaki lsrmzal tisngan akhvm psngedaran dadah. Lokasn mu dnbenkan ssbagax bzrhampiran ksdaw Peralmt Murah Tanpmg dan hersehmahannya ada rumah !Nl1\:FyEDnUWHLlnl§X2A‘1fi 5 -um, smm n-nhnrwm .. used w my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VIZ nfluNG W xn m 15 ssbuah bsngksl membam motarsxkefl. SP4 diberilahu uka ads sebuah Kereta Perodua Axxa berwama kumng dw mmah Iersebul bermakna pasangan auami wslen (erssbm sedang bsrada dr rumah Ssjurus aawapas nu, 5P4 mamanggil anggma pasukannya unluk sam laklimat manganai serhuan yang akan mjalankan Anggula yang terIiba| walah DIS! 59433 Anan a/I Velcu. DlKp\ 144005\smauHjAnmau,uIKpI14479n Muhammad Hafix Bin Hamid. D/Kpl 144599 Mahalmv Bin Haj: Rasrnd @ Munarnad (SP7), D/Kpl 145649 Ananda Kumar a/I Pekvisarny. D/Kpl 150764 Kasevan a/V Kannan den Kw/S 11573 Syamsm Kama! mn Shsharuddln. [10] F'adaJam1.3D pmang SP4 ls\ah mengelua\ ssmuan Ks rumah yang didudukx uleh Terluduh den Isterinya (Terlufluh Ksdua) beralamal di Na. 73. Ham 5. Slmpang CI1angkaIJenng,Ta|p|ng dengan menawki beblapa kenderaan sepem kerela clan mulnvswkm Meveka sampai dw tampat yang dituju pi-1dz}am1 45 pstang dzn memberhenlikan kendevaan yang mnam di wni zalan ham membual pememaunn ke avah sebuah rumah dx mans dmnax (srdapa! sebuah kerela Ferodua Axis berwama kuning diparkir. Pemerhanan selama 10 mini! ax «em man unnma mendapah niada orang keluar alau masuk Ke rumah nu dam mnnunya dalam keadaan lerlulup. Msreka Kemudlan membawa kenderaan pasuksn wamn hampxr ke rumah Iarsshm dan msmhual Vagi pemsrhalian selama 5 nnnn, juga naaa ke¥ma1an mang kemar alau masuk ke rumah nu. SP4 mengambfl kepulusan unluk menialankan sevbuan dan setemsnya menyusun a\uv kedudukan anggma Dasukannya dv kawaaan sekehhng rumah Iersebul [11] Pada Jam 2.00 pelang sP4 bersama-same SP7, D/SI Anan dan D/Km Ismail menghampm plnlu m ungkac bawah mmah nu dan lelah mendengar aua.-a |e|ak\ dan perempuan dan dalam mmah. s:>4 mba uncuk memhuka pin|u grill flan pmlu kayu mmah yang didapem |idak !Nl1\:FyEDnUWHLlnl§X2A‘1fi ‘ -um, an.‘ n-uhnrwm be used m mm .. anmnauly mm: dun-mm VIZ anuNG W 15 M 2; berkuncw dan ksampabempal mereka harus masuk menyerbu ke da\am vumah itu Sejurus masuk ke mmah, mereka lerhidu ban game yang kuat dan kelihalan secmng Ielam Me\ayu (Terluduh) dan secrang pevempuan Melsyu (Terluduh Kedua) sedang duduk dx sova bemampimn mam di ruang xamu di ungkal bawah rumah spa mengenalkan diri ssbagal pohs aan rnengamhkan Tanuduh bangun \am 5:»: mambual pamanksaan fluke! Kc alasnya |e1ap| (Idak meruumpax apa-apa bsrang saw: Psmsnksaan dualankan m ruang vamu Iarsebut uan di atas msja lad: anma« 1 kutak lelefun jenama 215 Blade herwama pm. (P47) yang mengandungi 5 peke| plashk mnsinar be kelulan mampat daundaun kering disyaki dadah gania (dnandakan sehagai FZQA dan P29B(1—5)| Tum! dijumpax di alas mejalersebu|1I.elelomenama Vivo (P48). 1 Ie\elon Samsung (P49), 1 kad ssu (P50) den 1 kad Maybank |F'51) sena sev-angkav 2 balang anak kunci rumah den gril (P52) [12] Ssterusnya SP4 dan anggola membawa Tenumm aan Islsrmya ke sehuah b m sebelah kiri bersebelahan dapur as Imgkal hawah mmah. Semasa masuk ke bxlik um 5:24 lalah mefha| sahuah beg dalam keadaan terbuka di alas mam bawah sebuah Kalil dua—|ingkaI dalam hihk lersebul spa membuka beg lsvsebut herjenama Hwgh Trans [P53] m hadapan Tenuduh dan xstennya sena anggou pasukan dan membual pemariksaan ke alas isx kandungsnnya Vain msnaapau: x. 7 pekel plashk lulsmar berisl bahan dlsyakl dadah hsrovn (PBUA flan FSUEB — PSGA dam PSGEI‘ m 10 pskal p\ast\k mainar bansw hahan disyaki dadah malI1ampheVanwIs(P37A dan Pa1s(1—1o);; m 3 kelulan mampal aaumsaun kering berbamt plaslwk lulsmar dxsyaki dadah gania (P3aA dan P3BE(1»3)|. !Nl1\:Fy¥flnLlWHUnl§X2A‘1fi -ma saw ...m.mm be used m mm In: mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 111 m iv 1 pekel masuk 111 dalamnya Ierdapat pekel-pekel prasxik kosong bsrssiz bssar (P54): v. 1 pekel plashk 111 dalamnys (erdapal pake1-peke1 masuk kosong bersaxz Ken‘! (P55); V1. 1 man pisau (P39(1A|), dan an 1 a1a1p-animbang barlufis sF—4oc (P56) [131 Dan alas kam cersabut juga SP4 celan mengamnu sehs\ai seluar jeans zenarna Lev‘1‘s(F57). sehe\a\ Tanm berkolar Jenama Oren Span (PSBJ, sehs\s\ baju Jerlama sopnie (P59), sehelai seluar panjang berwams Mam (F50)dan 1 keplng swan dengan Vogo Amway an alas nama Damanhuri Em vanaya (P61). naaa tangkapan lam dmua| a1au namng sanan lain u1n1n1pa1 .11 dalam mmah 1arsaun1. s1=4 mengamb1l1 bil e\akIrik di mang 1amn unluk pengesahan a1an1a1 nnnan (P62). [141 Tangkapan dan rampasan dikawa\ uleh spa sandin dan amawa bahk ke u=n Taming aengan menam kere1a Perodua Ax1a berwama kumng number pennanaran AJX 4057 bevsama-same 2 anggova serbuan ianu SP7 1parnandu kara1a)uan D/Kpx Ismail, Di Pepabal Narkolik, mang- barang kes (Blah dlbual canaaan clen SP4 dengan landaan khusus behau den tarikh 1o.1u.2c1s aena (andalangannya. sn-4 juga |e\ah membual Iapcran pulis cnangka1 Jenny Rspuvl 1471-1414/1a map, manyamakan Eurang Bnngkar (Pm, menyediakan Enrang Akuan Sarah Tanma Earang K95 (P45) dan menyerahkan kesemua balang kes yang 1a1an avbum 1andaan belisu darn dokumentasl berkenaarv kepada Psgawaw Peny1asa1 kw. iaim SP3. spa lurul membual Aandaan khusus behan lankh dan landatangannya ke alas barang xea yang mmmpas. Kama tersebul lelah maaranxan kepada pagawa1 peny1asa1 yang lam unluk kes pamcmannak nana sepsm Changkal Jsnng Report 1475/1a1P4s). rN111aFyEnnuw>1un:gxzAya ‘ -an, 5.11.1 ...n.mn .. used w my .. anmnmuy mm: dun-mm VIZ .nuNG Wm 15 [15] Gambar baranq kers telah dwambil sebanyak 15 xepzng P23(A—0| dan barang kes 1e1ah d1buaI dus|ir1g sena diambfl gambar sebanyak 5 keping (F25(A-E) Ietap1 lidak benaya menimbulkan capjsri umuk perbandlngan Pads kessokan hannya, SPBts\ah psrg1 ks mman (ersehut hsrsama»sama spa flan SP2 Immk msngambxl gambar Iempal kqadian sshanyak 52 ksplng |F2A(A-ZZ). Pada 20.10.2013, spa talah ka nnnan itu ssmula dan merampas 2 ua1ang anak kumi yang mempakan kunnl spare unluk pm\u mman den pmlu bihk 41 mana barang kes duumpa1(P66 dan P61) sem 2 Dasarly kasul (Pea dan F69). Plhak Forer1s1k PDRM lelah £12191 ke |empaI kejaman urnuk mengambll barang-barang peribadl sepem xuexa mand1 (P78), sxkal rsmbI.1l(P8D). bems glgl (P87 dan F86) den pmau mencukur (P84) bag: m,uan uuan DNA ssna samps\ dalah Tanuaun den vslennya 11291 dan P92) den dnkemukakan ms\a\u1 kanerangan spa. Kepulusan uflan DNA yang auananxan oleh 51210 menunjukkan kehadwan pmfil DNA perempuan uacen Terluduh) pada herus g i dan Iuala mandi rnanakara pmfil yang Iemahmdak kunklusw pada pisau penwkuv nan sanupex namhul Lapcran Kvma o1eh Jabman K1m‘1a Mauayaa berkaitan perkara 1n. aaa1an we manakaua Rm JKM nnanaakan P75 sena resn seran-menyeran P74. [15] Eating-Darang rampasan dadah Celah d|kawa\ oleh s1=4 sehelum serahan kepada spa. Bsrat kasarhmhangan yang amua1o1eh SP4 1111120 Tammy dncalatkan as aa1am P43 Kanmman, semua barang rampasan dadah den akanm lain yang lelah dwandakan 1a1an msimpan di Sela! Barang Ka Jabalan Narkonk IPD Taipmg, Serahan dibuaz o1en SP5 kepada SP1 ssperri Akuan seran Tenma benankh 12.102019. 22.102013, 17.6.2019, 155.2019 (jam 2.05pm) flan 15.5 2019 (jam 2 40pm) yang dlkemukakan dan mxandakan mss1ng-mas1ng sebagal P8, 1N111aFyEnnuwMun:gxzAw ‘Nata s.n.1...n.m111.. 1;... m mm 1.. anmn.uIy mm: m.n.n wa .r1uNG Wm P9, P10, P11 den P12. Salinsn Buku Dana: Salor an muka sum yang berkanan man sepem duandakan P13. [17] Katerangan mengenai dadah yang dwjumpai |e\ah mkemukaksn 5 me\alui Ann Kirvua Iallu spa yang Ielah mengehzarkan Reswl JKM No, Makmal 1&FR—M:a4ea bertavikh 15402013 mcanuakan P27 darn nasvl anzhsa dw Lapnran Kunia benankh 23,4 2019 yang dilandakan P25. sva menenrna semua barang kes dadah umuk anahsa danpafla spa. Haul anansa kvrma mendavall kandungan den beret dadah lsrsebut adalah m dadah berbahaya yang tsrsenaral dalam Janna! Panama ADE 1952 sspem Derlkul: a. 7 pekel p|as1ik lusmar berisi bahan dadaI1(P30A dan P3055 — P3eA dan F365) msankan mengandungl hem! bersih .5 Hemin 255 gram dan Mnnoazzelwmurphmes 53.9 gram Uumlah berm ms gram): u: 10 Dekel Masuk Iumnar bans: bahan dadsh P37A aan F'37B(1-10)) dlsshkan mengandungIMe(hsmphs1amlne beral bersm 332.: gram: zn m. 3 kemlan mampal daurmaun kenng nemam plaslvk Msinav (FJBA den P3BE(1—3)) disahkan mangarldungw «B51 4 gram berat hersih Cannabxs sepem; dan N. 5 peket plasllk lutsmav berisi kelwan mampal daun—daun kering (dnnndakan sebagal PZSA dun P29B(1-5)) msankan 25 mengandungi 40.33 gram beral bsrsih Cannabis [13] Laporan mmra P26 jugs menysbul hanawa u F'3§A(1)) mempunyax kesan cannabis rssin manakala pakaxan yang dirampas Iiada kesan aaaan. rNI1\:FyEnnuwMun:gxzAyn “’ Nuns smm ...n.Mn .. used m mm .. .mmn.u-y mm: m.n.n wa mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PD-82-2-03/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHAMAD HANIF BIN KAMAL

Perbicaraan Jenayah - Seksyen 41 (1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 ("APJ") - Di akhir kes pendakwaan - Identiti simati tidak dibuktikan secara konklusif - Tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri di bawah Seksyen 42 APJ - Di akhir kes pembelaan - penjelasan Tertuduh tidak diterima oleh Mahkamah - namun telah menimbulkan keraguan munasabah - Tertuduh didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di bawah Seksyen 43 (1) APJ

10/01/2024

Puan Chai Ing Hien

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1249f6bc-8b96-4fa7-a4aa-74b946e742e4&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - ALASAN HANIF 41 APJ 1 DI DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET JENAYAH DI BALIK PULAU DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG NO. KES: PD-82-2-03/2022 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN MOHAMAD HANIF BIN KAMAL PENDAHULUAN [1] Tertuduh dituduh di bawah s. 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (“APJ”). Setelah perbicaraan dijalankan, di akhir kes pihak pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan gagal menimbulkan kes prima facie di bawah s. 41(1) APJ. Namun demikian, Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa satu kes di bawah s. 42 APJ telah berjaya dibuktikan secara prima facie oleh pihak pendakwaan. Lalu, Tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri di bawah s. 42 APJ. Di akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah ini memutuskan untuk mensabitkan Tertuduh di bawah s. 43(1) APJ. Fakta Kes Menurut Keterangan-Keterangan Saksi [2] SP1 iaitu anak simati telah menerima panggilan pada 31/7/2020 sekitar jam 12.30 pagi bahawa ayahnya (simati) telah berlaku kemalangan di Jalan Tun Dr. Awang. Semasa sampai di tempat kejadian SP1 telah berjumpa dengan simati yang masih sedar dan mengadu sakit 10/01/2024 09:28:15 PD-82-2-03/2022 Kand. 64 S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 perut. SP1 kemudian membawa simati ke Hospital Pantai dan simati dimasukkan ke wad kecemasan. [3] SP5 merupakan doktor yang menjalankan pembedahan terhadap simati di Hospital Pantai. Simati diberi rawatan di Hospital Pantai sehingga 5/8/2020 dan disebabkan ahli keluarga tidak mampu untuk membayar bil rawatan di Hospital Pantai, simati telah dibawa balik ke rumah dimana simati telah meninggal dunia. [4] Post-mortem secara external telah dijalankan oleh SP3 dan SP3 telah mengesahkan punca kematian simati adalah “post motor vehicle accident sustained multiple internal organ injuries”. [5] Kes ini pada asalnya disiasat oleh Sarjan Abd Rahim dan seterusnya diambil alih oleh SP 7. Sarjan Abd Rahim telah meninggal dunia sebelum perbicaraan kes ini bermula. Hasil siasatan SP7 menunjukkan bahawa simati sedang dalam perjalanan pulang ke rumahnya semasa kemalangan berlaku. Tertuduh datang dari Bayan Lepas manakala simati dari arah Bayan Baru. Keadaan tempat kejadian gelap berlampu jalan dan ada pembahagi jalan di tepi. Kemalangan berlaku di laluan simati dimana kedua-dua motokar dalam kedudukan tidak diubah dari tempat asal kejadian dan serpihan komponen kenderaan serta kesan minyak turut ada dalam laluan simati. Tiada kesan tayar atau brek di laluan Tertuduh. Hasil siasatan SP7 setelah mengambilkira kesemua hal keadaan, saiz jalan, persekitaran, serpihan serta kerosakan motorkar telah menyimpulkan bahawa iainya adalah satu perlanggaran yang berlaku di laluan simati secara berhadapan. Pertuduhan asal – s. 41(1) APJ [6] Sebelum memanggil SP5, pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan satu pertuduhan pindaan di bawah s. 41(1) APJ: S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 “PERTUDUHAN PINDAAN Bahawa kamu pada 31/07/2020 jam lebih kurang 1.30 pagi di Jalan Tun Dr. Awang di dalam Daerah Barat Daya, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang sebagai pemandu motokar No. VEU 1093 didapati telah memandu kenderaan tersebut di atas jalan raya secara merbahaya tanpa mengendahkan suasana dalam keadaan (bentuk-bentuk, kegunaan jalan dan juga kesibukan di atas jalan raya yang boleh dijangkakan) sehingga menyebabkan kematian kepada pemandu motokar No. PMA 9363 bernama Shim Bak Leng (No. K/P : xxxxxx-xx-xxxx). Oleh yang demikian itu, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 41 (1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987.” [7] Mahkamah telah membenarkan pindaan tersebut berdasarkan s. 158 (1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan pihak pembelaan mempunyai hak untuk memanggil semula saksi berdasarkan s. 162 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Beban Pembuktian Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [8] Beban pembuktian di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah prima facie menurut s. 173(h)(i) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (“KTJ”) yang seperti berikut: “(h) (i) 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.” [9] Berkenaan prima facie, s. 173(h)(iiI) KTJ menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 “(iii) For the purpose for subparagraphs (i) and (ii), 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.” [10] Berdasarkan kes Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP [2003] 1 CLJ 734, dalam menentukan sama ada satu kes prima facie telah dibuat, Mahkamah mesti menilai keterangan pendakwaan kepada penilaian maksimum: “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.” INTIPATI KESALAHAN SEKSYEN 41 (1) APJ [11] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada kes PP v. Wan Khairil Wan Isa [2007] 9 CLJ 557 yang menyenaraikan intipati kesalahan di bawah s. 41(1) APJ: “[5] The essential ingredients then of the offence created under s. 41(1) of the Act are: (a) a person who, (b) by driving a motor vehicle recklessly; or S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (c) by driving a motor vehicle at a speed; or (d) by driving a motor vehicle in a manner which, having regard to the circumstances (including the nature, condition and size of the road and the amount of traffic which is or might be expected to be on the road) is dangerous to the public; (e) causes the death of a person shall be guilty of an offence...” [12] Berdasarkan pertuduhan pindaan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan, pertuduhan terhadap tertuduh adalah berdasarkan limb ketiga iaitu “by driving a motor vehicle in a manner which, having regard to the circumstances (including the nature, condition and size of the road and the amount of traffic which is or might be expected to be on the road) is dangerous to the public”. Maka, untuk membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh, perlu dibuktikan: a) Tertuduh adalah pemandu motokar No. VEU 1093 semasa kejadian b) Tertuduh memandu kenderaan tersebut di atas jalan raya secara merbahaya tanpa mengendahkan suasana dalam keadaan (bentuk- bentuk, kegunaan jalan dan juga kesibukan di atas jalan raya yang boleh dijangkakan) c) Tindakan tersebut telah menyebabkan kematian Shim Bak Leng Tertuduh adalah pemandu motokar No. VEU 1093 semasa kejadian [13] Keterangan menunjukkan bahawa kemalangan berlaku antara dua buah kenderaan iaitu motorkar VEU 1093 dan motorkar PMA 9363 di Jalan Tun Dr Awang pada 31/7/2020 tengah malam. S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [14] Berdasarkan laporan polis (D18) yang dibuat oleh Tertuduh sendiri, Tertuduh telah mengakui pada 31/7/2020 jam lebih kurang 1.30 pagi, beliau memandu motokar VEU 1093 dari kem Tun Razak hendak balik rumah di kem Sungai Ara melalui jalan Tun Dr Awang dan berlaku kemalangan tersebut. [15] Maka, berdasarkan keterangan, adalah terbukti Tertuduh adalah pemandu motorkar VEU 1093. Tertuduh memandu kenderaan tersebut di atas jalan raya secara merbahaya tanpa mengendahkan suasana dalam keadaan (bentuk- bentuk, kegunaan jalan dan juga kesibukan di atas jalan raya yang boleh dijangkakan) [16] Dalam mempertimbangkan intipati ini, mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Lim Chin Poh v. PP [1969] 1 LNS 92 di mana mahkamah memutuskan: “In my opinion the expression driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public indicates some dangerous act or manoeuvre on the part of the driver of a vehicle, eg, overtaking a vehicle on the wrong side of it, or overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic or overtaking when unable to see oncoming traffic, or crossing a junction against traffic light, and so on. There must be some positive act on the part of the driver which is dangerous having regard to all circumstances.” [17] Dalam kes ini, tiada saksi mata yang menyaksikan bagaimana perlanggaran kedua-dua kenderaan berlaku. Keterangan SP1 menunjukkan pemandu motokar PMA 9363 (simati) masih lagi dalam keadaan sedar diri dan boleh bercakap selepas kemalangan berlaku. Namun demikian, tiada keterangan menunjukkan simati menjelaskan S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 kepada siapa-siapa bagaimana perlanggaran tersebut berlaku sewaktu itu. Simati telah meninggal dunia selepas 5 hari selepas kemalangan. [18] Walaubagaimanapun, Mahkamah ini mendapati elemen ini berjaya dibuktikan berdasarkan keterangan senyap: a) Berdasarkan gambar tempat kejadian (P7) dan rajah kasar (P17), dan dibanding dengan laporan polis Tertuduh (D18), semasa kejadian motokar PMA 9363 (motokar simati) bergerak dari Bayan Baru di laluan H1 dan H2 (laluan simati) manakala motokar VEU 1093 (motokar Tertuduh) bergerak dari Bayan Lepas di laluan H2 dan H3 (laluan Tertuduh). b) Kedudukan kedua-dua kenderaan dan juga serpihan kenderaan yang berada di laluan H1 dan H2 (laluan simati) menunjukkan pelanggaran kedua-dua kenderaan berlaku di laluan simati. c) Inferens berdasarkan keterangan boleh dibuat bahawa motokar VEU 1093 yang dipandu oleh Tertuduh di laluan H2 dan H3 telah masuk ke laluan H1 dan H2 iaitu laluan simati. d) Mahkamah mendapati tempat kejadian berlaku iaitu Jalan Tun Dr. Awang hanya mempunyai dua lorong (satu lorong pergi dan satu lorong balik), dan sepanjang jalan kiri dan kanan Jalan Tun Dr. Awang dipagari oleh pengadang besi. e) Mahkamah ini mendapati dengan cara pemanduan motokar memasuki lorong kenderaan bertentangan laluan, cara pemanduan tersebut merbahaya kerana kenderaan dari arah bertentangan tidak dapat elak dengan ada pengadang besi di sepanjang jalan. S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [19] Mahkamah turut merujuk kepada kes PP v. Low Yong Ping [1961] 1 LNS 91 yang memutuskan bahawa meninggalkan laluan sendiri dan memasuki laluan kenderaan bertentangan adalah merbahaya: “I will conclude by saying that it is impossible to define "dangerous driving," and the legislature has quite rightly not attempted to do so. Driving can become dangerous in an infinite variety of circumstances, one of which is leaving one's own proper side of the road and getting into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Such an act has potentially fatal consequences in the vast majority of cases, and there can be no two views about it being "dangerous".” Tindakan tersebut telah menyebabkan kematian Shim Bak Leng [20] Mahkamah mendapati pelanggaran PMA 9363 dan VEU 1093 berlaku di laluan motokar PMA 9363 (laluan simati). [21] SP 1, anak kepada simati, telah mengesahkan bahawa beliau telah pergi ke tempat kejadian selepas kemalangan berlaku dan berjumpa dengan simati di tempat kejadian. SP 1 yang membawa simati ke hospital Pantai. [22] Kemalangan berlaku pada 31/7/2020 jam lebih kurang 1.30 pagi. Simati meninggal dunia pada 5/8/2020, iaitu 5 hari selepas kejadian. [23] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Kee Kuo Wen v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 1290 yang memutuskan bahawa identiti simati adalah elemen yang penting untuk dibuktikan: “[21] The submission by the prosecution that the issue as to the identification of the deceased does not arise since SP2 was at the place of incident and had identified the deceased as his father, is in the considered view of this court, misplaced. Based on the requirements of the law relating to accident cases S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 such as under the present s. 41(1) of the RTA where death occurred, the identification of the deceased being one of the important elements to be proven by the prosecution must be made to a medical officer at the hospital before the autopsy is conducted by someone who knows the deceased personally. The identification merely by the investigating officer without any evidence as to how he could identify the deceased in this case is insufficient under the law. The requirement of strict proof in this kind of case cannot be relaxed to bridge any material gap in the prosecution evidence. It is the finding of this court that the identity of the deceased was not conclusively proved by the prosecution.” [24] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Mohd Hashim Said v PP [2021] MLJU 1890 yang memutuskan bahawa identiti simati perlu dibuktikan secara konklusif. Dalam kes tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati tiada keterangan menunjukkan orang yang terlibat dalam kemalangan merupakan orang yang dijalankan bedah siasat. [25] Sama seperti dalam kes ini, SP 3 iaitu doktor yang menjalankan bedah siasat, tidak dapat ingat siapa yang membuat pengecaman mayat. Bahagian nota keterangan yang relevan adalah seperti yang berikut: “Pendakwa Raya : Dalam kes ini siapa yang membuat pengecaman mayat doktor ingat tak? SP 3: Saya tak berapa ingat Pendakwa Raya : Tetapi waris hadir? SP 3: Waris hadir” [26] SP 1 menyatakan bahawa dia menunggu di luar bilik bedah siasat dan tiada keterangan menunjukkan SP 1 dipanggil untuk cam mayat simati. S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [27] Maka, mahkamah mendapati intipati ini tidak dibuktikan. KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN [28] Memandangkan intipati pertama dan kedua telah dibuktikan, ia boleh terjumlah kepada satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 42 APJ. Setelah membuat penilaian maksima ke atas keterangan pihak pendakwaan serta menanya diri sendiri, sekiranya mahkamah memutuskan untuk memanggil Tertuduh membela diri di bawah Seksyen 42 APJ, dan Tertuduh memilih untuk berdiam diri, adakah mahkamah akan mensabitkanya berdasarkan keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan? Jawapan adalah positif. Maka, mahkamah mendapati satu kes prima facie telah dibuktikan untuk kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 42 APJ dan Tertuduh diperintahkan untuk membela untuk satu pertuduhan pindaan di bawah Seksyen 42 APJ. [29] Mahkamah menggunakan kuasa di bawah Seksyen 173(h)(ii) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah untuk meminda pertuduhan. Pertuduhan pindaan di bawah Seksyen 42 APJ seperti berikut telah dibacakan dan diterangkan kepada Tertuduh: Pertuduhan pindaan Bahawa kamu pada 31/7/2020 jam lebih kurang 1.30 pagi di Jalan Tun Dr. Awang di dalam daerah Barat Daya, di dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang sebagai pemandu motorkar No. VEU 1093 didapati telah memandu kenderaan tersebut dengan berbahaya kepada orang awam, oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 42 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 [Akta 333] dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen yang sama. S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 PEMBELAAN [30] Tiga pilihan telah diterangkan kepada Tertuduh dan beliau telah memilih untuk memberi keterangan secara bersumpah di dalam kandang saksi. [31] Pihak pembelaan hanya ada seorang saksi iaitu Tertuduh sendiri. Pembelaan Tertuduh secara ringkas adalah seperti berikut: Pada tarikh kejadian Tertuduh baru selesai bertugas di Kem Tun Razak pada jam 1.20 pagi. Tertuduh menggunakan jalan Tun Dr Awang untuk balik ke bilik penginapan di Kem Sungai Ara. Tertuduh memandu di bawah had laju 80 km/jam. Tertuduh pertama kali melihat kereta simati dalam jarak lebih kurang 100 meter dan kereta simati dalam keadaan terhuyung-hayang dan tidak lurus. Kereta simati memasuki ke lorong Tertuduh dan bergerak terus ke arah Tertuduh. Tertuduh cuba meninggikan lampu beberapa kali sebagai isyarat. Tertuduh memasuki ke lorong simati dan terus memandu secara perlahan sebagai langkah waspada. Tertuduh melihat kereta simati bergerak laju di atas lorong Tertuduh. Pada jarak 5 meter, kereta simati telah beralih masuk ke lorong simati secara mengejut tanpa sebarang amaran. Menyedari pergerakan mendadak ini, Tertuduh mengilas stereng untuk mengelak pertembungan langsung di atas lorong simati. Namun sudah terlambat. Penilaian keterangan pembelaan Tertuduh [32] Pada penghujung kes pembelaan, Mahkamah perlu memutuskan segala keterangan yang telah dikemukakan sepanjang perbicaraan, sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes di sebalik keraguan yang munasabah. Seksyen 173(m)(i) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (“KTJ”) menyatakan: S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “(m) (i) At the conclusion of the trial, the Court shall consider all the evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.” [33] Adalah prinsip yang mantap bahawa beban pihak pembelaan hanyalah untuk menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan untuk mendapatkan pelepasan dan pembebasan. [34] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mat v. PP [1963] MLJ 263. Di dalam kes ini Suffian J telah menggariskan beberapa panduan kepada Mahkamah dalam membuat keputusan iaitu: “If you accept the explanation given by or on behalf of the accused, you must of course acquit. But this does not entitle you to convict if you do not believe that explanation, for he is still entitled to an acquittal if it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, as the onus of proving his guilt lies throughout on the prosecution. If upon the whole evidence you are left in a real state of doubt, the prosecution has failed to satisfy the onus of proof which lies upon it. The position may be conveniently stated as follows: (a) If you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt........ Convict. (b) If you accept or believe the accused's explanation…… Acquit. (c) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation, do not convict but consider the next steps below. (d) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation and that explanation does not raise in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt........ Convict (e) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation but nevertheless it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt…… Acquit” S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [35] Berdasarkan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pembelaan, mahkamah tidak menerima penjelasan yang diberi oleh Tertuduh tentang bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Mahkamah mendapati penjelasan tersebut adalah tidak munasabah atas alasan berikut: a) Versi bahawa motokar simati masuk ke laluan Tertuduh dan Tertuduh memasuki laluan simati untuk mengelak adalah langsung tidak dinyatakan dalam laporan polis Tertuduh sendiri b) Tertuduh juga mengakui bahawa versi tersebut tidak diberitahu kepada pegawai penyiasat c) Alasan bahawa Tertuduh kehilangan ingatan hanya ditimbulkan semasa kes pembelaan tanpa apa-apa keterangan perubatan [36] Walaupun penjelasan bagaimana kereta Tertuduh memasuki laluan simati tidak diterima oleh mahkamah ini, Mahkamah perlu ke langkah seterusnya sepertimana yang dijelaskan dalam kes Mat v. PP (supra): “If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation.. Do not convict but consider the next steps below. (d) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation and that explanation does not raise in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt........ Convict (e) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation but nevertheless it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt… Acquit” [37] Dalam perkara ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Tinggi Kedah Rayuan Jenayah NO: KA-41LB-7-07/2022 PP Lwn Zolkapli Bin Long @ Mohamad yang memutuskan dalam menilai keterangan pihak pembelaan, Mahkamah ini perlu menilai keseluruhan S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 keterangan yang dikemukakan termasuk keterangan yang dikemukakan di peringkat pendakwaan dan juga peringkat pembelaan: “…Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan pihak Responden bahawa prinsip undang-undang dalam menilai keterangan pihak pembelaan bagi menentukan wujudnya keraguan munasabah (reasonable doubt) atau tidak, Mahkamah yang membicarakan hendaklah menilai keseluruhan keterangan yang telah dikemukakan, yang mana dalam hal ini, termasuklah keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan di peringkat pendakwaan dan juga peringkat pembelaan. [18] Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa dalam menilai keterangan-keterangan di peringkat pembelaan, Mahkamah Majistret juga perlu menilai keterangan-keterangan di peringkat pendakwaan bagi menentukan sama ada keterangan pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah ataupun tidak terhadap kes pendakwaan.” [38] Dalam menilai keseluruhan keterangan yang telah dikemukakan, mahkamah mendapati keterangan pembelaan telah mewujudkan persoalan apakah keadaan yang membuatkan kereta Tertuduh berada di laluan yang bertentangan? [39] Sama ada Tertuduh memandu di atas laluan simati, atau Tertuduh memandu di laluan Tertuduh sendiri sehingga mencerobohi laluan simati? Mahkamah ini berpendapat sekiranya Tertuduh memandu di atas laluan simati, ia merupakan satu pemanduan yang merbahaya. Manakala, sekiranya Tertuduh memandu di laluan Tertuduh sendiri namun telah mencerobohi ke laluan simati sejurus sebelum perlanggaran kerana tidak memberi perhatian yang penuh semasa memandu, ia boleh terjumlah kepada pemanduan tanpa kecermatan dan perhatian. Ia merupakan satu kesalahan di bawah s. 43 APJ dan bukannya s. 42 APJ. S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [40] Dalam kes ini, tiada keterangan pakar yang boleh membuat interpretasi terhadap impak kerosakan kenderaan dari aspek kelajuan kedua-dua kenderaan. [41] Terdapat two inferens yang munasabah seperti yang dinyatakan di atas. Berdasarkan undang-undang mantap, ketika terdapat melebihi satu inferens yang munasabah, inferens yang lebih memihak kepada Tertuduh patut digunapakai. Dengan itu, inferens yang memihak, iaitu Tertuduh menceroboh ke laluan sah simati sejurus sebelum pertembungan berlaku patut dibuat. [42] Secara kesimpulannya, mahkamah tidak menerima penjelasan yang dikemukakan oleh Tertuduh. Namun, penjelasannya telah menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kebersalahannya (as to his guilt) untuk satu pertuduhan di bawah s. 42 APJ. [43] Namun, keterangan yang ada adalah mencukupi untuk sabitan bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 43 (1) APJ 1987 iaitu memandu kenderaan motor di jalan tanpa kecermatan dan perhatian yang sepatutnya. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini mensabitkan Tertuduh di bawah Seksyen 43 (1) APJ 1987. HUKUMAN [44] Setelah mendengar hujahan peringanan hukuman dan pemberatan hukuman dari kedua-dua pihak, mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM7,000 gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara. Sabitan di bawah Seksyen 43 APJ 1987 diendorskan pada lesen memandu Tertuduh. Bertarikh 28 November 2023 S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 CHAI ING HIEN MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET BALIK PULAU Bagi pihak Pendakwaan: TPR Lushani a/p Ramanathan Bagi pihak Pembelaan: En. Johan Radzi Ahmad Zahar Tetuan Rahman Zulkhairi S/N vPZJEpaLp0kqnS5RudC5A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24NCvC-1438-08/2023

PEMOHON LAILI BINTI ABDULLAH RESPONDEN 1. ) FARIS RAZALI BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) NURUL AIN BINTI ABDUL HALIM 3. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kuala Langat

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Hakmilik tidak boleh disangkal − Perenggan 340(2)(b) Kanun Tanah Negara 1965/Kanun Tanah Negara 2020 [Akta 828]; seksyen 41 Specific Relief Act 1950 [Akta 137]; Aturan 7 dan Aturan 92 k. 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 − Sama ada pindahmilik boleh diisytiharkan sebagai tidak sah dan diisytiharkan terbatal? − Sama ada suatu perintah boleh diberikan kepada Defendan Ketiga untuk membetulkan daftar nama dalam Geran Mukim bagi Hartanah tersebut dengan mengeluarkan nama Defendan Kedua dan memasukkan semula nama Defendan Pertama? – Imbuhan kasih sayang – Sama ada Kategori dalam perenggan 12, Jadual 2 Akta Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah 1976 (Akta 169) terpakai?

10/01/2024

YA Puan Rozi Binti Bainon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c6b78d05-ad44-4ff4-a12c-723a2cbafe62&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO.: BA-24NCvC-1438-08/2023 Dalam perkara Mengenai Tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 1402, GM 924, Mukim Teluk Panglima Garang, Daerah Kuala Langat, Negeri Selangor. Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 340(2)(b) Kanun Tanah Negara 1965. Dan Dalam perkara-perkara Seksyen 41 dan 42 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 7 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. ANTARA LAILI BINTI ABDULLAH (No. K/P: 750503-10-5182) − PLAINTIF DAN 1. FARIS RAZALI BIN ABDULLAH (No. K/P: 721206-10-5757) 2. NURUL AIN BINTI ABDUL HALIM (No. K/P: 880223-14-5900) 10/01/2024 15:26:30 BA-24NCvC-1438-08/2023 Kand. 26 S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 3. PENTADBIR TANAH KUALA LANGAT − DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan/Latar belakang Fakta [1] Pada 2-8-2023, Plaintif memfailkan Saman Pemula ini di bawah perenggan 340(2)(b) Kanun Tanah Negara 1965/Kanun Tanah Negara 2020 [Akta 828]; seksyen 41 Specific Relief Act 1950 [Akta 137]; Aturan 7 dan Aturan 92 k. 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 [P.U(A) 205/2012] dan/atau bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah ini untuk memohon perintah di bawah yang berikut: (a) deklarasi bahawa pindahmilik 3/56 bahagian di atas sebuah tanah di Lot 1402 GM 924, Mukim Teluk Panglima Garang, Daerah Kuala Langat, Negeri Selangor (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “Hartanah tersebut”) milik Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua pada 3.4.2017 adalah tidak sah dan terbatal; (b) perintah bahawa Defendan Ketiga hendaklah membetulkan daftar nama di dalam Geran Mukim bagi Hartanah tersebut dengan mengeluarkan nama Defendan Kedua dan memasukkan semula nama Defendan Pertama; dan (c) perintah bahawa Plaintif diberikan kebebasan untuk memohon, termasuk kebebasan untuk memohon sebarang arahan-arahan lain untuk penyampaian dan/atau relif berbangkit; S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (d) perintah lain atau relief selanjutnya sebagaimana difikirkan sesuai oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. Hubungan pihak-pihak: [2] Plaintif mempunyai 4 orang adik beradik dan Plaintif iaitu – Faris Razali bin Abdullah Anak sulung/Defendan Pertama Arif Sazali bin Abdullah Anak kedua Laili binti Abdullah Anak ketiga/Plaintif Hafizah binti Abdullah Anak bongsu [3] Kedua-dua ibu bapa Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama telah meninggal dunia dan Hartanah tersebut hendak diberikan kepada anak- anak mereka iaitu Plaintif dan adik beradiknya. [4] Pada 19-12-2007 (tarikh Perintah Penghukuman Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia atas petisyen oleh Che Mokhtar & Ling), Arif Sazali bin Abdullah diisyrtiharkan seorang bankrap dan pada 27-12-2013 (tarikh Perintah Penghukuman Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia atas petisyen oleh Malaysia Building Society Berhad), Arif Sazali bin Abdullah diisyrtiharkan seorang bankrap. Maka, bahagian daripada Hartanah tersebut tidak dapat dipindahmilik kepada Arif Sazali bin Abdullah. [5] Plaintif membenarkan Arif Sazali bin Abdullah terus tinggal dan menjalankan perniagaan di atas Hartanah tersebut memandangkan Arif Sazali bin Abdullah sudah menetap dan berniaga sejak 25 tahun lalu sewaktu ibubapa mereka masih hidup. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [6] Tiada pertalian kekeluargaan di antara Defendan Pertama dengan Defendan Kedua namun begitu, Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa mereka mempunyai hubungan yang sangat akrab dan rapat di antara satu sama lain. [7] Pada perenggan 13 afidavit sokongan, Plaintif menyatakan bahawa bahagian Hartanah yang dipegang/dimiliki oleh Defendan Pertama telah dijual kepada Defendan Kedua. Hartanah tersebut: [8] Perkara subjek dalam kes ini ialah mengenai hartanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 1402, GM 924, Mukim Teluk Panglima Garang, Daerah Langat dalam Negeri Selangor. [9] Dalam afidavit sokongan Plaintif, rekod ketuanpunyaan Hartanah tersebut dilampirkan sebagai Ekshibit LA-1 di mana perihal Hartanah tersebut adalah – • Geran Mukim & No. Hakmilik 924 • Luas Lot: 1.859 hektar • Kategori Penggunaan Tanah: Pertanian • Tanah Simpanan Melayu • Rekod Ketuanpunyaan: Defendan Pertama memegang/memiliki 3/56 bahagian Plaintif memegang/memiliki 3/56 bahagian S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [10] Pada 3-4-2017, Defendan Pertama telah memindahmilik 3/56 bahagiannya itu kepada Defendan Kedua (Nurul Ain binti Abdul Halim) atas imbuhan kasih sayang. Borang 14 A dilampirkan sebagai Ekshibit LA-2. [11] Plaintif memplidkan bahawa sekitar 18-5-2022, Defendan Kedua dan/atau wakilnya telah menceroboh dan memusnahkan struktur dan/atau bangunan yang dibina oleh Arif Sazali bin Abdullah di atas Hartanah tersebut yang mengakibatkan Arif Sazali bin Abdullah mengalami kerugian yang besar. [12] Defendan Kedua dalam menjawab kepada afidavit sokongan Plaintif menyatakan seperti yang berikut: • saya menyatakan bahawa saya telah lama mengenali Defendan Pertama yang merupakan pemilik sebahagian daripada Hartanah tersebut melalui Zulkaply Bin Sani yang merupakan bapa saudara Defendan Pertama dan kenalan rapat keluarga saya. • sepanjang perkenalan tersebut, keluarga saya dan keluarga Defendan Pertama menjadi rapat kerana kami saling bantu membantu di antara satu sama lain termasuklah bantuan- bantuan kewangan yang saya berikan kepada Defendan Pertama apabila Defendan Pertama memerlukan bantuan sama ada dalam bentuk hutang ataupun sedekah (tanpa balasan). S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 • saya percaya bahawa Defendan Pertama telah terhutang budi dengan saya dan keluarga saya dan telah menghadiahkan kepada saya sebidang tanah iaitu Hartanah tersebut. • sebagai membalas budi, saya seterusnya menyatakan kepada Defendan Pertama bahawa sekiranya saya mengusahakan Hartanah tersebut, Defendan Pertama boleh membantu saya menguruskan sebarang perniagaan atau perusahaan yang boleh saya jalankan di atas Hartanah tersebut untuk menjana pendapatan tambahan kepada Defendan Pertama, sekiranya keadaan memerlukan. • saya percaya bahawa Borang 14A yang dirujuk oleh Plaintif di Ekshibit LA-2 tersebut tiada sebarang kecacatan dan pindah milik secara imbuhan kasih sayang tanpa balasan wang tersebut adalah sah berikutan keakraban hubungan diantara saya dengan Defendan Pertama. • setelah dinasihati oleh peguam cara Defendan Kedua, saya seterusnya mengatakan bahawa Saman Pemula yang difailkan oleh Plaintif ini adalah satu penyalahgunaan prosiding yang mana ianya bertujuan untuk melengah- lengahkan dan atau menghalang prosiding Writ Saman saya ke atas Arif Sazali bin Abdullah No. Kes BK-A53-4-07/2022, di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Kes BK-A53-4-07/2022, di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang: [13] Defendan Kedua telah menyaman Arif Sazali bin Abdullah di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang melalui Guaman No.: BK-A53-4-07/2022 untuk perintah agar Arif Sazali bin Abdullah mengosongkan bahagian Hartanah yang didudukinya dan menuntut milikan kosong bahagian 3/56 Hartanah tersebut. [14] Atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif, Plaintif menyatakan dan percaya bahawa pindahmilik di bawah Borang 14A atas dasar imbuhan kasih sayang tanpa balasan hanya boleh dilakukan antara pihak-pihak yang mempunyai hubungan antara satu sama lain seperti ibu bapa, anak atau suami isteri. Oleh kerana tiada apa-apa hubungan darah ataupun hubungan perkahwinan, maka Defendan Kedua tidak layak menerima pindahmilik bahagian 3/56 daripada Defendan Pertama. [15] Dengan itu, atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif, Plaintif menyatakan dan percaya bahawa pindahmilik di bawah Borang 14A tidak layak didaftarkan, hakmilik Defendan Kedua boleh disangkal dan pindahmilik itu perlu diketepikan. Keputusan Mahkamah pada 8-11-2023 [16] Selepas meneliti Lampiran 1, afidavit, dokumen dan hujahan bertulis oleh peguam-peguam, Mahkamah ini memutuskan untuk menolak Saman Pemula ini dan berdasarkan hujahan mengenai kos, Mahkamah ini mengawardkan kos sebanyak RM2000.00 dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada setiap Defendan. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [17] Plaintif (Laili binti Abdullah) tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah ini dan merayu terhadap keputusan kepada Mahkamah Rayuan. [18] Alasan keputusan Mahkamah ini dinyatakan dalam alasan penghakiman ini. Dapatan dan Analisa Mahkamah [19] Mahkamah ini telah menyemak dengan pihak Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang mengenai kes yang difailkan oleh Nurul Ain binti Abdul Halim terhadap Arif Sazali bin Abdullah. Maklumat mengenai kes di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang ialah kes itu dipindahkan dari Mahkamah Sesyen Shah Alam ke Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang. Tarikh bicara belum ditetapkan dan kes ini masih di peringkat pengurusan kes. [20] Berdasarkan Saman Pemula ini adalah jelas bahawa Plaintif mempertikaikan mengenai pindahmilik bahagian 3/56 abang sulungnya kepada Defendan Kedua yang tiada apa-apa hubungan kekeluargaan dengan Plaintif. Tindakan perobohan sebagaimana dalam foto yang diekshibitkan oleh Plaintif membuktikan bahawa Plaintif dan/atau abang keduanya iaitu Arif Sazali bin Abdullah mengalami kerugian. [21] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti afidavit jawapan oleh Defendan Pertama (Faris Razali bin Abdullah), Defendan Kedua (Nurul Ain binti Abdul Halim), dan Defendan Ketiga (Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat) untuk mendapatkan fakta yang jelas mengenai permohonan Plaintif yang memohon deklarasi pindahmilik di bawah Borang 14A tidak S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 layak didaftarkan, hakmilik Defendan Kedua boleh disangkal dan pindahmilik itu perlu diketepikan. Afidavit Defendan Pertama (Faris Razali bin Abdullah): [22] Dalam afidavit jawapan Defendan Pertama kepada afidavit sokongan Plaintif, Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa − • Arif Sazali bin Abdullah telah menduduki bahagian yang dipegang/dimilik oleh Defendan Pertama dan bukannya menduduki bahagian yang dipegang/dimilik oleh Plaintif. • Arif Sazali bin Abdullah telah menduduki bahagian yang dipegang/dimilik oleh Defendan Pertama tanpa kebenaran Defendan Pertama. Defendan Pertama telah membuat laporan polis pada 15-3-2017 terhadap Arif Sazali bin Abdullah. Namun, Arif Sazali bin Abdullah masih enggan keluar dari bahagian yang dipegang/dimilik oleh Defendan Pertama. • berkenaan dengan pindahmilik bahagian yang dipegang/dimilik oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua, Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa pindahmilik itu dibuat secara sukarela tanpa paksaan, Defendan Pertama dalam keadaan waras, tanpa pengaruh daripada sesiapa dan dilakukan atas imbuhan kasih sayang kerana Defendan Pertama terhutang budi kepada Defendan Kedua dan suami Defendan Kedua yang banyak membantu Defendan Pertama S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 sewaktu Defendan Pertama dalam kesempitan dan kesusahan. • Defendan Pertama mahu agar bahagian yang dipegang/dimilik oleh Defendan Pertama diusahakan oleh Defendan Kedua. • bapa saudara Defendan Pertama iaitu Zulkaply bin Sani telah mengupah juru ukur untuk menandakan bahagian-bahagian yang dimiliki oleh setiap pemilik berdaftar Hartanah tersebut. Berdasarkan ukuran itu, Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa Arif Sazali bin Abdullah telah menduduki dan membina struktur bangunan di bahagian yang dipegang/dimilik oleh Defendan Pertama tanpa izin Defendan Pertama. Bahagian yang dipegang/dimilik oleh Defendan Pertama telah dipindahmilik kepada Defendan Kedua. Afidavit Defendan Kedua (Nurul Ain binti Abdul Halim): [23] Dalam afidavit jawapan Defendan Kedua kepada afidavit sokongan Plaintif, Defendan Kedua menyatakan bahawa − • pada semua masa yang material, Plaintif mahupun Defendan Pertama bukanlah pemegang amanah yang memegang hakmilik Hartanah tersebut sebagai amanah untuk dipindahkan kepada Arif Sazali bin Abdullah. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 • Defendan Kedua tidak menceroboh mana-mana hartanah yang dimiliki oleh Plaintif atau Arif Sazali bin Abdullah. • Defendan Kedua hanya memasuki Petak 9 iaitu kawasan Hartanah tersebut yang dimiliki oleh saya (“Bahagian Hartanah saya”) sebagaimana yang ditetapkan menerusi ukuran dan penandaan petak sempadan yang telah dijalankan oleh juru ukur atas permintaan salah seorang pemilik sebahagian Hartanah tersebut iaitu Zulkaply bin Sani bertarikh 04.12.2021 bersama dengan Pelan Pra Hitungan yang ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit NAH-3. • pada ketika Defendan Kedua dan pekerja-pekerjanya memasuki Bahagian Hartanahnya itu, Defendan Kedua dan pekerja-pekerjanya mendapati terdapat binaan dan struktur yang telah dibina di atas Bahagian Hartanahnya itu dan seorang lelaki yang mengaku sebagai tuan punya binaan dan struktur tersebut telah menghalang kerja-kerja pembersihan yang hendak dijalankan. Pekerja Defendan Kedua telah membuat laporan polis pada 18.05.2022 dan Defendan Kedua sendiri membuat laporan polis pada 20.05.2022. • atas nasihat peguam cara Defendan Kedua, Defendan Kedua menyatakan bahawa pindahmilik atas dasar imbuhan kasih sayang tanpa balasan wang tidak terhad kepada pihak-pihak yang mempunyai hubungan darah (blood related). Dan, Saman Pemula yang difailkan oleh Plaintif ini adalah satu penyalahgunaan prosiding yang mana ianya bertujuan untuk melengah-lengahkan dan atau menghalang prosiding Writ S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Saman Defendan Kedua terhadap Arif Sazali bin Abdullah di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang. Afidavit Defendan Ketiga (Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat): [24] En. Muhamad KamilRafizal bin Zainal Abiddin, Penolong Pegawai Daerah di Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Kuala Langat dalam afidavit jawapan Defendan Ketiga kepada afidavit sokongan Plaintif, Defendan Ketiga menyatakan bahawa – • berdasarkan rekod di Defendan Ketiga, Plaintif ialah salah seorang daripada pemilik berdaftar dengan syer 3/56 bahagian atas Hartanah tersebut. • Defendan Ketiga menafikan kenyataan Plaintif bahawa Defendan Pertama ialah salah seorang pemilik bersama Hartanah tersebut yang memiliki 3/56 bahagian. • Defendan Ketiga mengakui bahawa berdasarkan rekod, Defendan Pertama pernah didaftarkan bersekali dengan Plaintif sebagai salah seorang pemilik berdaftar Hartanah tersebut dengan syer masing-masing sebanyak 3/56 bahagian. Ini ialah atas transaksi turunmilik akibat kematian (Borang E) daripada Siti Zaleha binti Mohd Sani. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 • berkenaan dengan pindahmilik oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua bagi bahagian 3/56 yang dipegang/dimiliki oleh Defendan Pertama, Defendan Ketiga mengakui bahawa berdasarkan rekod terdapat suatu transaksi pindahmilik tanah (Borang 14A) daripada Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua. Borang 14A itu ditandatangani oleh Defendan Pertama selaku pemberi pindahmilik, Defendan Kedua selaku penerima pindahmilik dan perserahan pindahmilik dibuat oleh Zulkaply bin Sani. • Defendan Ketiga mengakui bahawa Defendan kedua ialah salah seorang pemilik berdaftar Hartanah tersebut dengan syer 3/56 bahagian selaras dengan pendaftaran Borang 14A dengan Defendan Ketiga. • pendaftaran Borang 14A telah dibuat selaras dengan peruntukan di bawah Kanun Tanah Negara 2020 [Akta 828] yang mana instrument pindahmilik tersebut layak untuk didaftarkan di mana pada masa material, Defendan Ketiga telah diserahkan dengan dokumen Borang 14A yang lengkap diisi dan ditandatangani; hakmilik asal Dokumen Hakmilik Keluaran; resit cukai tanah; dan bayaran fi pendaftaran pindahmilik. • Defendan Ketiga telah melaksanakan fungsi administratifnya selaras dengan Akta 828 dan dengan itu wajar dilindungi di bawah seksyen 22 Akta yang sama. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 • kategori bagi jenis penggunaan tanah bagi Hartanah tersebut ialah “Pertanian” dan apa-apa aktiviti yang dijalankan atas Hartanah tersebut perlu mematuhi peruntukan seksyen 115 Kanun Tanah Negara 2020 [Akta 828] mengenai syarat-syarat nyata dan tersirat yang menyentuh tanah tertakluk kepada kategori “Pertanian”. Isu untuk dipertimbangkan dan diputuskan oleh Mahkamah [25] Mahkamah mengenaipasti isu yang berikut: (a) sama ada pindahmilik bahagian 3/56 yang dipegang/dimiliki oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua boleh diisytiharkan sebagai tidak sah dan diisytiharkan terbatal? (b) sama ada suatu perintah boleh diberikan kepada Defendan Ketiga untuk membetulkan daftar nama dalam Geran Mukim bagi Hartanah tersebut dengan mengeluarkan nama Defendan Kedua dan memasukkan semula nama Defendan Pertama? Dapatan dan keputusan Mahkamah [26] Menurut peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif, berdasarkan latar belakang fakta kes ini, Hartanah tersebut adalah diturunmilik daripada ibu Plaintif kepada anak-anaknya iaitu Plaintif, Defendan Pertama, Arif Sazali bin Abdullah dan Hafizah binti Abdullah. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [27] Berdasarkan keterangan dokumen dalam afidavit, Arif Sazali bin Abdullah telah diisyrtiharkan bankrap. Manakala, Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dalam afidavit mereka menyatakan bahawa Hafizah binti Abdullah juga seorang bankrap. [28] Berdasarkan rekod ketuanpunyaan, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa hanya nama Plaintif (Laili binti Abdullah) dan nama Defendan Pertama (Faris Razali binti Abdullah) didaftarkan sebagai tuanpunya berdaftar Hartanah tersebut mengikut syer/bahagian masing-masing sebanyak 3/56. Manakala, nama Zulkaply bin Sani itu juga ada didaftarkan sebagai tuanpunya berdaftar Hartanah tersebut mengikut syer/bahagiannya. [29] Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua menyebut nama Zulkaply bin Sani di mana Zulkaply bin Sani disebut sebagai bapa saudara kepada Defendan Pertama. Manakala Defendan Kedua mengenali Zulkaply bin Sani. Mahkamah ini pasti bahawa Siti Zaleha binti Mohd Sani (arwah) dan Zulkaply bin Sani itu adalah adik beradik (bersaudara). [30] Walaupun Arif Sazali bin Abdullah tidak menjadi salah seorang tuanpunya di Hartanah tersebut, Plaintif membenarkan Arif Sazali bin Abdullah tinggal dan menjalankan perniagaan di Hartanah tersebut. Ini kerana Arif Sazali bin Abdullah telah berada di Hartanah tersebut dan menjalankan perniagaan sejak ibubapa mereka masih hidup. [31] Tindakan guaman melalui writ saman oleh Defendan Kedua terhadap Arif Sazali bin Abdullah di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang membawa kepada pendedahan bahawa Defendan Pertama telah memindahmilik bahagiannya sebanyak 3/56 kepada Defendan Kedua. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [32] Defendan Kedua menuntut terhadap Arif Sazali bin Abdullah di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang untuk keluar dari Hartanah tersebut, menuntut ganti rugi, injunksi dan perobohan struktur bangunan di Hartanah tersebut. Defendan Kedua memplidkan bahawa Arif Sazali bin Abdullah telah menceroboh ke bahagian yang dipegang/dimiliki oleh Defendan Kedua. Kes di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang masih di peringkat pengurusan kes. [33] Tindakan Defendan Kedua menceroboh dan meruntuhkan struktur bangunan yang dibina oleh Arif Sazali bin Abdullah. Tindakan Defendan Kedua ini mengakibatkan Arif Sazali bin Abdullah mengalami kerugian harta benda dan kewangan. [34] Saman Pemula difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi oleh Plaintif untuk menyangkal pindahmilik di bawah Borang 14A yang dilakukan oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua atas dasar imbuhan kasih sayang. Undang-Undang yang terpakai [35] Kanun Tanah Negara 2020 (Act 828) memperuntukkan mengenai iaitu – Part Twenty—INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE AND INTEREST Section 340. Registration to confer indefeasible title or interest, except in certain circumstances S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (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. (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: S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 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 (b) the determination of any title or interest by operation of law. [36] Mahkamah ini mendapati keterangan dokumentar dan keterangan afidavit yang menyatakan bahawa Defendan Kedua ialah pemegang/pemilik baharu bahagian 3/56 Defendan Pertama tersebut adalah jelas dan tertera pada dokumen hakmilik Hartanah tersebut. [37] Mahkamah ini ingin merujuk dan menggunapakai nas undang- undang kes yang dipetik oleh Peguam Kanan Persekutuan/Peguam Persekutuan yang mewakili Defendan Ketiga iaitu kes iaitu keputusan M ahkamah Rayuan da lam kes Ideal Advantage Sdn Bhd v. Perbadanan Pengurusan Palm Spring @ Damansara and another appeal [2019] MLJU 624 yang menjelaskan perun tukan seksyen 340 (2) (b) KTN seperti berikut: S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 “[92] Pursuant to section 340 (2) (b) of the NLC 1965, registrat ion which is obtained by way of an insufficient or void instrument does not confer indefeasibil ity on the tit le or interest acquired. It is unfortunate that the phrase “insufficient or void instrument” has not been judicial ly defined and case laws does not seem to distinguish the words “insufficient” or “void”. Often the instrument was referred to as “insufficient and void” (see Appoo s/o Krishnan v. Ellamah d/o Ramasamy [1971] 2 MLJ 201). Case laws are also not clear as to whether the word should be read conjunct ively or disjunctively. The learned authors, Teo Keang Sood & Khaw Lake Tee in Land Law in Malaysia, Cases and Commentary, 2nd Edit ion, page 169, preferred to read it in a disjunctive fashion. We are of the view that it could be read disjunctively and conjunctively. Therefore, an instrument of dealing may be both, i.e. insufficient and void or insuff icient though not necessari ly void, for failure to comply with certain procedures as laid down in the NLC 1965, e.g. sections 207 - 211. An instrument which is forged, or which is contrary to any restriction in interest to which the land is subject, or to any prohibition or statutory provisions under the Code or any written law, or for non- compliance with the provisions of the Code, are all void instruments. Examples o f void S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 deal ings are: dealings effected in favour of or by minors (see Tan Hee Juan v Teh Boon Keat [1934] MLJ 96); deal ings in contravention of any restriction in interest to which the land or interest in land is subject (see UMBC v Syarikat Perumahan Luas Sdn Bhd ( No. 2) [1988] 3 M LJ 352); transact ions in contravent ion of Moneylenders Ordinance 1951 (Apavoo s/o Krishnan v Ellamah d/o Ramasamy [1974] 2 MLJ 201); or Malay Reservations Enactments; dealings effected in contravention of section 433 B NLC 1965 in favor of foreign companies and persons who are not citizens; deal ings not in compliance with the NLC 1965 (M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd v Siland Sdn Bhd & Anor [1994] 1 MLJ 294.”. [38] Berlandaskan pemakaian peruntukan Kanun Tanah Negara dan prinsip undang-undang kes, Defendan Ketiga menghujahkan bahawa pendaftaran pindahmilik Hartanah tersebut telah dibuat oleh Defendan Ketiga secara teratur selaras dengan seksyen 5 dan seksyen 215(1) Kanun Tanah Negara; Borang 14A; bidang tugas Defendan Ketiga sebagai Pendaftar atau Pentadbir Tanah ialah untuk menentukan kelayakan surat cara yang diterima adalah berdasarkan seksyen 297 dan seksyen 301 Kanun Tanah Negara. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [39] Seterusnya, peguam cara terpelajar bagi Defendan Ketiga menegaskan bahawa sebagai Pentadbir Tanah, Defendan Ketiga tidak dipertanggungkan dengan tanggungjawab untuk menyiasat di sebalik Borang 14A yang dikemukakan untuk memuaskan hatinya bahawa hubungan pemindah milik dan penerima pindahmilik yang dinyatakan dalam Borang 14A adalah berdasarkan pertalian darah sepertimana yang didakwa pihak-pihak dalam kes ini. [40] Menurut peguam cara terpelajar bagi Defendan Ketiga, tugas Defendan Ketiga hanyalah untuk memastikan bahawa butiran pemindahmilik dan Hartanah yang dipindahkan adalah berpadanan tepat dengan butiran yang disimpan dalam rekod Defendan Ketiga. [41] Berdasarkan dokumen yang diserahkan kepada Defendan ketiga iaitu Borang 14A yang lengkap ditandatangani dan diakusaksikan oleh pemberi pindahmilik dan penerima pindahmilik; pembayaran duti setem sudah selesai; dokumen Hakmilik Asal; resit cukai tanah dan bayaran fi pendaftaran pindahmilik yang sempurna maka suratcara pindahmilik tersebut layak untuk didaftarkan. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [42] Mahkamah ini telah membaca dan meneliti hujahan bertulis peguam-peguam (Defendan Pertama tidak memfailkan hujahannya) iaitu – Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: Saman Pemula Plaintif ini ialah untuk menyangkal pindahmilik oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Ketiga berdasarkan seksyen 340(2) Kanun Tanah Negara khususnya perenggan 340 (2) (b) iaitu “jika sekiranya pendaftaran diperoleh secara pemalsuan, atau dengan cara suatu instrument yang tidak mencukupi atau tak sah;”. para [5]: Undang- undang menggariskan bahawa sesuatu perjanjian tanpa pertimbangan adalah tidak sah melainkan ianya dibuat dalam bentuk bertulis, di daftarkan dan dibuat atas dasar kasih sayang di antara pihak-pihak yang mempunyai hubungan yang rapat. Seksyen 26 (A) Akta Kontrak 1950. Beban pembuktian adalah diletakkan di atas Plaintif untuk membuktikan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa hakmilik yang dipegang oleh Defendan Kedua boleh disangkal. Prinsip ini adalah selaras dengan dapatan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: Bh d [2015] MLJU 292 yang memutuskan − “[52] we therefore reiterate that we agree and accept the rationale in In re B (children) (supra) that in civil claim even when fraud is alleged the civil standard of proof, that is on the balance of probabilities, should apply. And perhaps it is not out of place here to restate the general rule at common law that, “in the absence S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: of a statutory provision to the contrary, proof in civil proceedings o f facts amounting to the commission of a crime need only be on a balance of probabil it ies”. Dalam kes Zaibar Auto (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn Bhd [1996] 2 MLJ 221 memutuskan bahawa hakmilik hanya boleh dicabar sekiranya termasuk dalam mana-mana keadaan yang dinyatakan dalam para [6]: Undang- undang telah memperuntukkan bahawa pindah-milik yang berlaku tanpa pertimbangan kewangan masih dianggap sebagai sah sekiranya terdapat pertimbangan kasih sayang di antara pihak-pihak. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: seksyen 340 (2) Kanun Tanah Negara. Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa dengan memakai keputusan dalam kes Zaibar Auto (M) Sdn Bhd kepada kes Saman Pemula ini, jelas menunjukkan bahawa hakmilik Defendan Kedua ke atas 3/56 bahagian Hartanah tersebut adalah boleh disangkal di bawah seksyen 340(2) (b) Kanun Tanah Negara keranan pindahmilik oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua adalah dibuat atas S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: dasar kasih sayang, sedangkan Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua tidak mempunyai sebarang hubungan pertalian darah mahupun perkahwinan. Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa pindahmilik atas dasar imbuhan kasih sayang tanpa balasan wang hanya boleh dilakukan antara pihak-pihak yang mempunyai pertalian darah atau hubungan kekeluargaan antara satu sama lain seperti ibu bapa kepada anak-anak atau suami-isteri. para [7]: Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Tang Meng Hock v. Tang Ming Seng [2010] 1 CLJ 208 memutuskan seperti berikut: [20] It is an established principle that natural love and affection is good and valid consideration in law. This is all too well- known in land S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: conveyancing law and practice. Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa pindahmilik daripada Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua adalah bercanggah dengan seksyen 26(a) Akta Kontrak 1950 di mana “an agreement made without consideration is void, unless it is in writing and registered; it is expressed in writing and registered under trhe law (if any) for the time being in force for the registration of such documents, and is made on account of para [8]: Undang- undang tidak menetapkan bahawa pertalian darah di antara pihak pihak itu sebagai syarat wajib bagi suatu perjanjian atau transaksi yang dilakukan melalui pertimbangan kasih sayang itu untuk menjadi sah. para [9]: Ianya bergantung kepada keadaan atau cara hidup (mores) dan keadaan hubungan (circumstances of the family concerned) pihak-pihak atau keluarga yang terlibat. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other;”. Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif memetik nas undang- undang kes mengenai “natural love and affection” – • Chock Yock Kwai @ Chock Yook Sze v. Chock Yook Choong & Ors [2002] 8 CLJ 161 (Low Hop Bing J). • In Re Tan Soh Sim, Deceased; Chan Lam Keong And 4 Others v. Tan Saw Keow S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: And 3 Others [1951] 1 MLJ 21 (Taylor J). • Eng Nyoke Yen v. Hee Kay Soon [2016] 1 LNS 1403 (Ahmad Nasfy Haji Yasin J). • Goh Sew Kim v. Woo Shaw Lu & Ors [2016] 1 LNS 1162 yang memutuskan “a transfer of property for love and affection to strangers will be void pursuant to section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950. The Form 14A in that case reflects a prior agreement to S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: transfer with no consideration and in consequence the transfer instrument is void and may attract section 340(2) (b) of NLC.”. Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif merujuk kepada peruntukan perenggan 12, Jadual 2 Akta Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah 1976 yang memberikan perspektif berkenaan dengan pindahmilik atas dasar kasih sayang bahawa hanya 3 kategori individu yang layak melupuskan aset secara kaedah para [10]: Yang Arif Taylor J, dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan, In Re Tan Soh Sim, Deceased; Chan Lam Keong & 4 Ors v. Tan Saw Keow & 3 Ors [1951] 1 MLJ 21 – It is impossible to define relationship or “nearness” without either extending or restricting the legislation which would be beyond the province of the Court. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: pemberian tanpa balasan iaitu suami dan isteri, ibu bapa dan anak serta datuk nenek dan cucu. If the word “near” were omitted, then the most distant cousin would be an eligible relation and the clause would be unmanageable. The words “relationship” and “near” must be applied and interpreted in each case according to the mores ofthe group to which the parties belong and with regard to the circumstances of the family concerned. para [11]: Yang Arif Briggs J di dalam kes yang sama pula memutuskan seperti yang berikut: S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: The other requirement of s. 26 is that the agreement should have been made “on account of natural love and attention between parties standing in a near relation to each other.”. In the phrase “natural love and affection” I think full effect must be given to the word “natural”, and that it means not only “reasonably to be expected”, but “reasonably to be expected, having regard to the normal emotional feelings of human beings.”. This immediately establishes the S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: connection of these words with the later phrase “standing in a near relation.”. That phrase indicates, in my opinion, that the “emotional feelings” required are of a special type, that is to say, they are such feelings as may ordinarily be expected to spring from the fact of the “near relation.”. If either the feelings or the relations are lacking, the section does not apply. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif memetik keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Tan Ying Hong v. Tan Sian San & Ors [2010] 2 MLJ 1 bahawa sekiranya transaksi berdaftar hartanah dilakukan berdasarkan instrument yang tidak sah, transaksi tersebut perlu diketepikan dan hakmilik perlu dikembalikan kepada pemilik berdaftar yang sebelumnya. para [12]: Adalah jelas disini bahawa Mahkamah tidak menjadikan pertalian darah sebagai syarat wajib, tetapi lebih cenderung menjadikan pertalian darah tersebut sebagai satu treshold untuk menentukan kadar andaian dan pembuktian (presumption and evidence). Briggs J turut mengesahkan perkara ini: If love and affection were stated in the document to exist, an estoppel might in certain circumstances arise. In the case of parent and child there S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: is, no doubt, a strong presumption that love and affection exist. Indeed, in that case, the presumption may be sufficiently strong to afford proof, within the meaning of the Evidence Ordinance, without any actual evidence. But if the relation is less near, the presumption diminishes with the nearness, and rapidly becomes too weak to act upon, in the absence of express evidence. If the evidence of love and affection were strong, I personally should wish to take a liberal view on the question what type of relation could in S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: law be near, and I think it not impossible that, (apart from any differences arising from different personal laws) the answer to that question might be affected by the circumstances of the individual case. For example, if an orphan were brought up by comparatively remote relations, who were nevertheless his nearest, I think the Court might hold them to be “near” in the special circumstances, though ordinarily they would not be “near.”. I am disposed, therefore, to think that there may be a sort of sliding scale by which S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: love and affection, proved or presumed, and relative nearness of relation may interact on one another, and that, although some relations are obviously near, it would be unwise to say generally that any specific relation must be too remote. para [24]: Beban bukti untuk menunjukkan terdapatnya hubungan kasih sayang dan rapat selaras dengan peruntukan seksyen 26 (a) Contracts Act 1950 terletak pada bahu pihak-pihak yang mengatakan terdapatnya hubungan tersebut sebelum S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: ianya berbalik kepada Plaintif untuk menyangkalnya (before the burden could be shifted to the Plaintiff). para [25]: Ini adalah sebagaimana yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes Lee Kian Choon v. Neo Thiam Seng [2020] 1 LNS 1709. para [26]: Kami berhujah dengan menyatakan bahawa beban pembuktian ke atas Defendan Kedua untuk membuktikan terdapatnya hubungan kasih sayang di antara Defendan Pertama S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: dengan Defendan Kedua telah pun disempurnakan, bukan sahaja melalui keterangan Afidavit Defendan Kedua malah disokong oleh keterangan Afidavit Defendan Pertama. para [27]: Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes Gan Seng Kee v. Yap Yok Lan [2015] 1 LNS 493 memutuskan – 67. This is essentially to me a question of fact. Since there is no blood relationship between Ng Leng and Yap Yok Lan, natural love and affection cannot be presumed but it does not mean S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: that it cannot be proved that it was reasonably to be expected as well as existed between the parties. 70. In the premises, I am satisfied that the transfer of the Lands was made with sufficient consideration of natural love and affection consistent with the intent and purposes of s. 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 (if so required) and I so find and hold accordingly. I noted that PW2 testified that she personally explained to Ng Leng in Bahasa Malaysia S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: that the transfer of the Lands was for natural love and affection when she executed the forms 14A. The forms were executed without hesitation or reservation. I also observed and took into consideration that James Foong J (as he then was) in Chung Kow @ Chan Mah Sau v. Chew Kon Yen [1994] MLJU 525 held that a plaintiff who was a close friend and not a blood relative of the defendant's father were nonetheless standing in a near relation to each other and shared the relationship of natural love and affection. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: para [44]: Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes terkini Mulia Ab Samat v. Hussien Abd Shukor [2021] 7 CLJ 271 dalam memberi keputusan berkenaan hubungan di antara seorang bapa angkat dengan anak angkat, telah memutuskan seperti yang berikut: [20] Based on the evidence of the plaintiff’s relationship with the deceased, this court has no hesitation to find that the standing of the plaintiff and the deceased donor were in near relation to each other, despite the fact that S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: the plaintiff has no blood relation with the deceased. In Chung Kow @ Chan Mah Sau v Chew Kon Yen [1994] MLJU 525, the High Court held it was sufficient to justify the parties were near relation to each other despite having no blood relation while applying the legal proposition in Re Tan Soh Sim, deceased. This court is of the considered view that there are sufficient normal emotional feelings of human beings in the circumstances of the case to establish that the impugned PA was S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: made on account of natural love and affection between the plaintiff and deceased standing in a near relation to each other despite the absence of blood relation (see also Gan Seng Kee v Yap Yok Lan [2015] MLJU 885). para [47]: Berdasarkan kes-kes yang dirujuk di atas, maka kami berhujah bahawa adalah jelas pertalian darah (blood relation/consanguinity) bukanlah satu syarat mandatori bagi Mahkamah untuk mengiktiraf pindah- milik yang dibuat melalui pertimbangan S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai pindahmilik berdasarkan imbuhan kasih sayang: kasih sayang oleh dua pihak yang tidak mempunyai pertalian darah. [43] Bagi isu locus standi, Mahkamah ini telah membaca dan meneliti hujahan bertulis yang berikut: Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai locus standi: Sebagai pemilik bersama Hartanah tersebut, Plaintif menegaskan bahawa Plaintif ada locus standi untuk memulakan prosiding Saman Pemula ini terhadap Defendan- Defendan. Seksyen 41 dan seksyen 42 Specific Relief Act 1950, Plaintif tidak mempunyai locus standi untuk memulakan prosiding ini di bawah s.41. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 46 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai locus standi: Defendan Kedua telah melakukan tindakan untuk menghalau abang kedua kepada Plaintif iaitu Arif Sazali bin Abdullah dari Hartanah tersebut yang mana Plaintif telah memberi kebenaran kepada Arif Sazali bin Abdullah untuk mendiami dan menjalankan perniagaan di Hartanah tersebut. Tindakan Defendan Kedua yang menyaman Arif Sazali bin Abdullah di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang atas tort pencerobohan berpunca daripada bahagian Defendan 14. Plaintif berhujah dengan menyatakan bahawa untuk memulakan satu tindakan bagi mendapatkan satu perintah pengisytiharan melalui budi bicara S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 47 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai locus standi: Pertama telah diberikan/dipindahmilik kepada Defendan Kedua atas dasar kasih sayang. Mahkamah (discretion of court) di bawah s.41 Specific Relief Act 1950, Plaintif hendaklah memenuhi syarat bahawa Plaintif adalah a person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property. (Yang Arif Abdoolcader J, dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Tan Sri Haji Othman Saat v. Mohamed Bin Ismail [1982] 2 MLJ 177). Plaintif menyatakan bahawa pindahmilik yang tidak sah itu maka Plaintif mempunyai locus standi untuk S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 48 Hujahan bertulis Plaintif Defendan Kedua Defendan Ketiga Isu mengenai locus standi: mengambil tindakan ini (seksyen 41 Specific Relief Act 1950). [44] Beban pembuktian adalah terletak di bahu Plaintif yang memohon untuk “menukar” suatu dokumen yang dilaksanakan oleh Defendan Ketiga. Deklarasi dan Perintah yang dipohon oleh Plaintif melalui Saman Pemulanya hanya berkaitan dengan pindahmilik bahagian Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua. Apa-apa kesan dan akibat daripada keputusan Mahkamah ini sudah pasti akan dirujuk oleh pihak-pihak dalam prosiding di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang di mana tuntutan Defendan Kedua (plaintif) terhadap Arif Sazali bin Abdullah (defendan) sedang berlangsung. [45] Isu pencerobohan, perobohan dan menghalau Arif Sazali bin Abdullah yang merupakan abang kandung kedua kepada Plaintif dan adik kandung kepada Defendan Pertama di Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang adalah kausa tindakan yang berbeza daripada Saman Pemula di Mahkamah ini. [46] Mahkamah mendapati peguam-peguam berhujah dengan baik berkenaan dengan isu pindahmilik, prinsip hakmilik tidak boleh disangkal dan prinsip undang-undang mengenai imbuhan kasih sayang. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 49 [47] Berdasarkan keterangan afidavit oleh Defendan Pertama sendiri yang tidak diwakili oleh mana-mana peguam, jelas menunjukkan bahawa “imbuhan kasih sayang” di antara Defendan Pertama yang berumur 51 tahun (pada tarikh Saman Pemula ini difailkan) dan Defendan Kedua yang berumur 35 tahun (pada tarikh Saman Pemula ini difailkan) yang mana Defendan Kedua itu juga ialah isteri orang telah dipertikaikan oleh Plaintif. [48] Pertikaian Plaintif ini didasari atas sebab hubungan Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua itu bukan pertalian darah/kekeluargaan dan juga perkahwinan. Namun, adakah Defendan Kedua itu orang asing (“stranger”) kepada Defendan Pertama? [49] Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa wujud suatu hubungan akrab antara Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua atas apa jua puncanya. Keakraban hubungan Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua ini membawa kepada pertukaran/pindahmilik bahagian 3/56 yang dipegang/dimiliki oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua. [50] Berdasarkan keterangan afidavit Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua, tiada apa-apa percanggahan fakta atau kekeliruan mengenai balasan. Mahkamah mendapati tiada apa-apa perjanjian jual beli di antara Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua berkenaan dengan Hartanah tersebut khususnya bahagian 3/56 Defendan Pertama. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 50 [51] Transaksi pindahmilik bahagian 3/56 Defendan Pertama berlangsung dengan keberadaan Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua serta En. Zulkaply Bin Sani iaitu bapa saudara kepada Defendan Pertama, yang mana Mahkamah pasti orang tersebut juga ialah bapa saudara kepada Plaintif. Walaupun tiada afidavit tambahan difailkan oleh En. Zulkaply Bin Sani untuk menyokong keterangan Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua, Mahkamah ini mendapati keterangan afidavit Defendan Ketiga mengesahkan kewujudan En. Zulkaply Bin Sani dalam transaksi pindahmilik bahagian 3/56 Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua. [52] Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa tiada apa-apa hal keadaan yang boleh menyebabkan hakmilik Defendan Kedua ke atas bahagian 3/56 Defendan Pertama yang telah didaftarkan secara teratur sebagaimana suratcara Boran 14A yang dikemukakan kepada Defendan Ketiga. Pernyataan dan catatan oleh Defendan Ketiga “Imbuhan kasih sayang” ditulis dengan jelas. Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan Defendan Ketiga bahawa bukanlah tugas Defendan Ketiga untuk menyiasat atas dasar apa “Imbuhan kasih sayang” itu berlaku. [53] Peruntukan seksyen 340(2) (b) Kanun Tanah Negara mengenai “indefeasible title” yang digunapakai oleh Plaintif untuk Saman Pemulanya ini atas sebab “where registration was obtained by means of an insufficient or void instrument” adalah secara jelas dapat disangkal dan ditangkis oleh Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua. Manakala, Defendan Ketiga yang menjadi pihak yang neutral dan “custodian” kepada transaksi pendaftaran menafikan bahawa pendaftaran yang dibuat oleh Defendan Pertama itu tidak teratur. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 51 [54] Tiada apa-apa ketidakaturan dalam transaksi pindahmilik oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua dan suratcara tersebut telah disempurnakan maka hakmilik bahagian 3/56 telah didaftarkan secara sah atas nama Defendan Kedua. [55] Berkenaan dengan peruntukan perenggan 12, Jadual 2 Akta Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah 1976 (Akta 169) yang dirujuk oleh peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif untuk menegaskan bahawa statut tersebut memberikan perspektif berkenaan dengan pindahmilik atas dasar kasih sayang bahawa hanya 3 kategori individu yang layak melupuskan aset secara kaedah pemberian tanpa balasan iaitu suami dan isteri, ibu bapa dan anak serta datuk nenek dan cucu, adalah suatu rumusan yang tidak tepat. [56] Akta 169 ialah suatu undang-undang bagi membuat peruntukan untuk mengenakan, mentaksir dan memungut cukai atas keuntungan yang didapati daripada pelupusan harta tanah. Mahkamah ini memutuskan hujahan peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif untuk menegaskan mengenai “3 kategori individu yang layak melupuskan aset secara kaedah pemberian tanpa balasan iaitu suami dan isteri, ibu bapa dan anak serta datuk nenek dan cucu” untuk mengikat Mahkamah ini berkenaan dengan perkara subjek dalam Saman Pemula ini adalah ditolak dan tidak terpakai. [57] Borang 14A yang telah diselesaikan dan disempurnakan di antara Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua adalah sah dan tidak boleh dibatalkan dengan alasan yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif. Hakmilik Defendan Kedua ke atas bahagian 3/56 Hartanah tersebut adalah tidak boleh disangkal maka Mahkamah ini menolak permohonan Plaintif untuk mengetepikan pindahmilik tersebut dan menolak permohonan Plaintif S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 52 agar bahagian 3/56 Hartanah tersebut dipulangkan semula kepada Defendan Pertama sebagai pemilik asal berdaftar bahagian Hartanah tersebut. Kesimpulan [58] Berdasarkan alasan yang dinyatakan dalam penghakiman ini, Mahakamah menolak Saman Pemula ini dengan kos sebanyak RM2000.00 dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada setiap Defendan-Defendan. Bertarikh: 10 Januari 2024. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam NCvC12 S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 53 Peguam cara: Bagi pihak Plaintif (Perayu): Nur Amira binti Ismail Tetuan Lope Maizura, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Bagi pihak Defendan Pertama (Responden Pertama): Faris Razali bin Abdullah Hadir sendiri – Tanpa Diwakili Peguam Bagi pihak Defendan Kedua (Responden Kedua): Nor Hafeez bin Nurul Hadi Tetuan Hafeez & Hazlina, Batu Caves, Selangor Bagi pihak Defendan Ketiga (Responden Ketiga): Amelia binti Masran Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor, Shah Alam. S/N BY23xkSt9EhLHI6LLrYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCvC-98-06/2023

PLAINTIF Global Tobacco Manufacturers (International) Sdn Bhd DEFENDAN GTM Land & Property Sdn Bhd

Interlocutory application – summary judgment application by the Plaintiff for the outstanding sum pursuant to the express terms of the Memorandum of Understanding Joint Venture Agreement.Whether the Defendant has raised bona fide triable issuesDispute between shareholders in other proceedings irrelevant to the claim between the companies.The court finds that there are no triable issues in this matter and allows the prayers sought by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 5. Interlocutory application – stay of proceedings pursuant to Section 470 of the Companies Act 2016 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court due to the presentation of winding up petition. Whether Section 470 of the Companies Act 2016 mandates an automatic stay of proceedings merely on the presentation of a winding-up petitionWhether the Court in granting summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff would amount to the Plaintiff having a better footing than other possible creditors. The Court finds that Section 470 of the Companies Act 2016 does not mandate an automatic stay of proceedings merely on the presentation of a winding-up petition.The Defendant has failed to convince the Court that extremely compelling reasons exist to warrant a stay of proceedings. Courts should proceed expeditiously once an action is filed. The Court finds that parties are at liberty to make any necessary applications in the winding up Court as Section 472 of the Companies Act 2016 is not an absolute bar in that any disposition is void unless the Court otherwise orders. The Court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings in Enclosure 29.

10/01/2024

YA Dato' Anand Ponnudurai

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5b900790-f350-4754-877b-e8a148ab1a57&Inline=true

11/01/2024 10:57:58 PA-22NCvC-98-06/2023 Kand. 62 S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kAeQW1DzVEeHeihSKsaVw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA—22NCvC—98—D6/2023 Kand. 52 11/01/2014 10: DALAM MAHKAMAH YINGGI MALAVA DI GEORGETOWN DALAIA NEGERI PULAU PINAIIG MALAYSIA GUAMAN SNIL No. PA-zzuooc-exwarzoza ANTARA Global Tobacco Manufacturers (mxamauanan Sdn and (Na. Syankal s32es1.v) Pwamurr Dan em Lam & Propany Sdn am (No. Syankal sea: 1 M) Defendan llmnduclion [1] The Plalnlufl has mmugn its slalemenl uf dam sought ma sum or RM14,411.1a7.4A from me Defendanlwmch itc\aims1s due la n purauam la a memorandum nl unaarsoandmg dated 11'" January 2011 (heremafler referred to as ‘Vhe saw MUA') and a joint venture agreement dated 26' November 2|712(hereinafier referved to as “the saw: JVA“). [2] Upnn the naaanaam amanng appearance, and poor to the filing of thew defence, the Plamtrfl Ned an applicalim var summary wdgment m an knauwtuzvz-Hamsxnvw P15: 1 M :1 wane Sum nu-nhnv M“ be used a mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII muuc wrm Enclosure 5 Parties therealler exchanged amdavils and wrlllen submissions in resvecl oi Endosure 5 [3] t-luweuer, pndr In nie deciding Ericlusuva S4 tiis Delendant filed an application in Endosure 29 pursuant In Suction 47a of Ihn companies Act 2016, and/or the inherent iurlsdlcflcn or me Courl seeking the entire proceedings in this suit In he stayed larthwith lollowing the presentation oi a windlngmp petition in Fenang Hrgh ceun lhrdugh vinnding UV Peliliori Md. PAr28NCC—57-07/2020 between Natural Transfarms sdn and as the Petitioner and the Deiendarir herein as well as Mr Gen ciiodn Kim and Mr. orig Ah Pun as Respondents respectively Natural Transidmis sdn an ' a shareholderanhe Deleridanl and seeks Io wind up the Detendant due la disegreemenls between shareholders and as such rt is contended there lriat ii is lust and equitable iar lrie nelendaril to be wound up [4] I men proceeded to hear euomiseidiis lrorri leamed counsel on bum Enclosures 5 and 29 on 4* December 2023, and upon hearing learned counsel and having considered the (acts and the law, I dismissed Enclosure 29 and allowed the Plalrmfl to enter summary iudgrnent in accordance wflh Endtdsure 5. [51 twill rmw set out the reasons far my decision to dismiss Endosure 29 and allow Enclosure 5 Background ram [51 Frdrri me variaus awidauits filed. the background facts are largely undisputed and aie as loliawe; sin kAaDW1DzVEAIHsihSKnVw me. 2 at u Nuns s.n.i In-vlhnrwm re used m mm i.e nflnlhallly MIME dun-mm wa nFluNG wnxl [I9] In relalinn In the Defendirlfs norilerilion and in reliance ai Station 172 of III: cumpan . Acl am I e. inai any dlsposmon at propeny of a company made aiierine uressnieiian ofa wrndingup pemlon snaii, unless iire coun otherwise eniers. be void. i am unabie In agree with euen eenieniion. in inis regard, ii is submitted by iearned caunsei ier ine Defendant ltlil any de 'sIun made by this Cour! will be vmd as me eniereemeni 0! ins axeculiori will be void in iigni or smien 411 ofmo Compan' 5 Act zms and max lh: summary iudgmem apniieauen was In Vain mm referenue made ia decisions such as Ahmad saidi bln um In vT|mbaIIn Ihnlcri iiai Ellwil 5 or: [min 3 ML! zoa; new sri Mohd Naiiir H] Aha Rlukv PF 4. Anutlurlppoal [ma 1 CLJ mend Petra Fnk Chong Lo @ Nur sormqan v nirmer oi Jaimun Anlma Islam Sarawak a. On (2014: a nu 737. [20] With respect, i am again unabie to awedelo sucn submission. In my view. the Piainlfi ought to be allowed to proceed Wllh (his matter and VIS summary judgment application. ii judgment is indeed subsequently glveri Io ine Plainliflarid it me paymeni al any iudgmeni sum were to emeuni |o a disuusluun at preperiy and possibly caugni by Section 412 at lhn Companies Act zine, pames are ai liberty to make any necessary appiicaiians in the winding up couri as Sectlnn 412 ohm Compan 5 Ant and IS not an absoiure bar in that any disposition is void unless me coun otherwise orders. [21] In the upshat, I lound no merits in Ericiosure 29 ar any basis in order a stay of proceedings and therefore dismissed Enclosure 29 with that I wiii move on In discuss the Piainiiirs summary judgment appiicaudn in Enclosure 5. in kAauW1DzVEIHsihSKnVw has :1 er :7 Nuns s.ii.i ...na.i M“ r. used m van; me niigiruiily MVM5 dun-rinrrl wa nFiuNG wnxi gnted above. me Ptaintifis appltcalton appears ta be a clear and straighnmward one basad enmrety on the express pmvtstons and terms of tne said MUA and the sad JVA. [23] Hawlg perused the pnmsrpnsottne said MUAandtnesatd JVA, ins dune cteartnat tne Defendant nad agreed In dust the Ptatntm certain number at units and tnat once sotd. tne proceeds at sucn sate snnuld be patd to me P\aInt1fl‘.lrtlat:1,Ihe Ptainw nas atsc annexed a tedgerwnrdm redtects that the Dedendant has rndeed made part payment thus teavrng the balance due as darmed. [24] As sucn. I will now nave In consider tne matters retsed by tne Defendant tn tne statement dtdetenae and thetr atfidavrts ta eonstder mnere are any tnabte issues rn relatron In the Ptarnttrrs ctarm. 125] Having perused tne satd devenae, atttdarnts as wet: as the netendanrs wrtllen submission, It is ctearmaune nevendant do not deny the exrstenee ui tne satd MUA and me said JVA and/or me vavmus patrgatrons rnarern. The crux ol tna oetendanrs defence ts one tnar centers around tneir oontentiort that one Mr cnan Eng Leong and his wtfe Ms. Chung Bee cnoo. who are currentty directors or the Ptarmm. are not ban: fide drredora ai the Plaintifl company. In this regard. tne Devendant htghhghls that the appointment of Mr Chan Eng Leang as director on 23* May 2019 pursuant to a snare sale egreenterrt is without bests and the subpect matter at a cwtl sun In PA-22NCVC-239-I2/2020 (heretnallev rerened to as “Suit No. 239-). snmtany. :1 ts conlendsd mat tne appointment or Ms. Chung Bee Choc as a otreaor on 16" August 2019 ts wtltmm bests and atsd a srn kAauWtDzVEnHethSKnVw Pig: :2 m :1 'NnI2 s.n.r n-nhnrwm re used m van; r.. mn.u.y ant. dun-nun! Va artum pvmt subiect matter oi anexrrer suit VII No. FAAZZNCVOE-D1/2020 lhereinaflar referred to as sun Me 5“) [26] As such, (he Defendam eoniends (hallhe said Mr cnen Eng Leon; and me wire Ms criong aee Choc are mere moumbemdirecrnrs dime Plaintiff «aiming a rBquiSi|iDrI rer an gem by majority sharenoiders uf me Piainmv In remuve them as mraciurs. [271 The Deiendanunus wrilends lhalsirice such a requisiuien has been made for their mmovak may are mere esreiaxer direcwrs and me miag ollhis actmn by me Pieinm is an exercise ei luiihly given their irnrninem removal as direcims [25] in is nneliy oonlended meme incumbent directors nnm use their powers to perpetrate their oorurol and no man or fms1raie shareholders‘ imenuen In remove them [291 The existent» oi the abwe suils as s1aI2d above are not in dispute, whereby VI is eieer ma: mere is currermy pending Issues or disputes amnngsl me srieieneuders oi me Pieinniw company. The SSM search of me Plainhff earnpeny In exhibit caez W1” eieeny ieveai that me said Mr. Chan Eng Leone and Ms. Chang Eee chad are me any two eurrem direcwrs 01 me Piainm company and in mi have 45o,ouu snares baiwsen men. and am mimmy snererreiders. [301 Hawever, n is not dispmed that me said Mr. cnan Eng Leong and Ms Chang Bee Choc have amained a com order in me oaun olAppea\ on the 21" January 2022 in Sun No 8‘ where the Court 01 Appeal had ingunaed me said Mr eon cnun Kim and Mr Ong Ah Poh (mm wnvaning sin kAaDW1DzVEAIHeihSKiaVw ms is M :1 we a.n.i n-vihnrwm as used is mm a. nflmruflly sun. dun-mm wa ariurm WM! en EGM tu remove Mr chen Eng Leone and Ms Chung Bee Choo as directors pending lhe proper disposal oi lhe iull suil [31] cnllrally, the Court 04 Appeal had also runner ordered trial the s Mr. G071 Chun Kim and Mr Orig All Full be restrained (mm lrllerlerlrrg with M7. Chan Ella Leongs and Ms chong see Chan's ngnle es arrenars of the Plainlm herein and mat they be restrained lmrn lnierlanng wllh lne rnanagenrenl and airarrs allrre l=larnlrlr herein pending the dispnsal olsrnt No.8 [32] In my considered view, the arrest r11 the Ouurl oi Appeal Omar above deafly does not suppon the Deierrdanrs wrwenlinn that they are merely incumbent l-lrrecwrs. [33] I lurlher cannot see how the Pan llrs ocrnrnenrsng lhis sun lor a debt owed to the Plelnlrll company is an anernpl to Ihlwarl or lruslmie the lnienllans oi lrre shareholders le remove them. Sinli|afVY- lhere is no rrnrnrnenl removal allne said Mr chan Eng Leong and Ms chong Bee Chm as rtrreclers In lrgrrl of the ears court of Appeal Older abuve. [34] The Defendant has also arewn the Court‘: allentlon as to the fact that some Learned Judges in alner surls have granted a stay 01 proceedings pending the removal nlMl. Chan Eng Leong and Ms. Chang Bee Chou as direaors However, I note than in muse mlrer suits, lne said rnaivldvels ere all parlles unilke the case herein. [as] In this case, the various shareholders are no! names bul any the nornpanres. in my vrew, l find rnent in the Plalnmrs contention that the issue oi the displne between the shareholders ls not relevant to the case at hand. in my view, lhls is clearly a case of lhe dirermrs oi the Plairliifl slN kAauW1DzVEAIHelhSKnVw me u er tr -nae s.n.l in-vlhnrwiii be used m mm ms nflninaiily sun. dun-vlnrll VI] .nuve wrul company acttng tn the pest interest onne company to recover a debt that ts ciesriy due to it under prcperiy executed agreements Tne iest that Mr. cnan Eng Leong and Ms. Chang aee once may not nave been dtrectprs at me ttme the agreements were executed ts In my view trielevant as lhe exscminn and tenns of ints agreement are not tn drepute. [36] no Deiendeni iunner contends met me anniicaticn herein ts an exerase tn inttitty tn light of tnatt pendtng remcysi as dtreotprs and/or met me suit herein ts an aouse M process In delay titan tmmtnent removai and to remain as dimdors With respect, I du not fathom not understand such convention and cannot see how this Suit is a Mme one or an abuse of process which can delay their vernuvai as direuovs As highlighted eanier, tn my considered ytew. it is a uearcese oitne Pietnnii company entorcino Iheir ngnis against me Deiendani company based on property executed dncumerns. [371 me oeienoant aise ecntends tnst tne satd Mt. cnan Eng Leong and Ms cnong Bee once naye no personal knawiedge ciine satd MOU and me slid JVA and were Hm tltreciors nor sharahoidets 5| the malarial lime and/or not lamiliar wllh Ihe anangements made helwsen the Plalrmfi and «rte Defendant in respect vf tnese agreements, in my ytew, such ts irrelevant as me Piatntm nas commenced tnis action on ine exvrus pmvlsionsaflhe said agreements and me etecutton and tnetemts Lflsudl agreements are not disputed oy «rte ueiendant Inc tenns oi the sen: agreements are tn my View clear [33] Ftnaity, in so tar as me contention by the neiendant titannesatd Mr. cnan Eng Leong and Ms Chang Bee once as divemnrs onne Plainliflcnmpany may dtsstpate any tudgntent sum ootained, inst in my View is mere ccntectuta and, in any avem, tne neiendant may apply «or a shy tn stn kAaQW1DzVEAIHsihSKiaVw me 15 at n ‘Nuns s.n.t ruvihnrwm as tn... ta mm ms nflmnaflly MW: dna-mm wa nF\uNG Wm! execution or any mher Orders n daems m to ensure my ruagrnerrr sum remains wilhm Ihe Plainnfi company Conclug gn [39] In one upslml, I find no meme issues in mi: malter and would gram order m terms oi Enclosure 5 As (or costs, I order the Detendam to pay me Prrarnm RM5000 00 sumea to allenalar. Dale 9*" January 2024 ANAND FONNUDURAI Judy: Hrgn Conn Geergetown Pulsu Pinang. counn ) Mr Tan we: Cea| together with Ms.L<M Km xm from Messrs Tan Wei oeau. Co lorme Plamm Mv.Thaya|an Irom Messrs Thaya\an & Assuuiata together Ms.Cheng Jun Min and Ms.Lum Khai in from Messrs. J A veoh lor me Defendant. sw kAauw1DzvEnHemsKnvw Pa! 15 at :1 mm Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe Ur... m mm r.. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG wrm Q: rcf-rud 3; Ahmad Snidr bin Md Isa v TTmba/an Menlsn Hal Ehwal 5 01s (200613 ML/ 205 Dale‘ Sn Mend Nam HiAbd Razak V PF 5 Aname1AppeaI[2(723] 1 cu 572 lnlemlhonsl Construction 4 cm Engmeering Sun and V ma Sdn Ehd 5 0rs[Yl718) 1 LNS 1252: 12013] MLRAU 317 Modalku Ventures S117! and v E—T9ch 1: Sdn Bhd, Able Enterprise (M) Sdn Bhd (Third Pally) [2023] MLRHU 1561 National Company For Foreign Trade 1/ Kayu Raya Sdn BM [1984] 1 MLRA 190,-1195412 MLJ zoo.-(193411 cu (Rep) 233 P9115 Psk Chang Ls @ Nur Shallqah v nxmmor a1 Jebatan Agama Is/am Sarawak S 075 [2074] 3 ML] 737 Sigur Ros Sdn am 5 Armrv Maybank Islamic Blvd .5 Anor[?O16] ML./U 542 Sn Jeluda Sdn and vPemaIink Sdn Elrd (200513 ML.l 5272 m Rules orcoun 2012, Order 14 compames Act 2016, Sections 470, 472 sw knauwtuzvz-Hemsxnvw use 17 :1 :1 mm 5.1.1 ...m.mm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! 61 me Plaiiiiirr and tne nelendant nee enlered me said MUA and lrie said JVAlorIhe uerendaiitte develop land belonging to tne Plairlllfl WI Fenang 6.2. Pursuant to the said MUA and the said JVA, me Plainlill was Bnhtlsd in a suin ol RM 25,456,660.00 as wrlsiderallnn witri lots/units allomted la I|. 6.3. Piiisuant to clause is at me said JVA, tne Delendanl ned lo sell lrie units allotted to trie Ptainlm in appendix E vflhe said agreement and all pieeeede oi sale shall be paid to lhe housing development account and m be released upon me issuance oltrie izeniiieaile offilness and written consent lrorn me housing 101:! and government ministry. 5 A The Delendanl was in pay me Plainllfl all me prueeeds of sale or the units which trre Plainlm was entitled to 6 5 The development pidiect has been completed wilri lne Cerllflcale of Completion and Compliance (nereinarlerieiened in as 'ccc“) rievtng been issued and the deiects Iiabili 5 period has ended. E 6 one Mr Goh crioon Kim was a eenininn director IM me Plainim end trie Defendant at all me inaienal nines and both me MUA and JVA were signed by nini 6 7. me Plaimiw has annexed a ledger in exhibit CH5 whrcrl reveals that me nelendanl has iiiede parl payment to me Plaimm leaving a balance due and owing oi RMM,471,137 44. sin kAauW1DzVEnHslhSKnVw rag: 2 al :1 None s.n.i In-vlhnrwm be in... m my me nflglruflly MIME dun-vlnrrl VIZ .nune wmi Thu Aggllcable Law m the iew ie trite in that once the Ptaintm nas Dnmnlied witn nu prooedurai requirements. tne bunien eniits to the Deienaani to raise inable Issues to iieieet tne apphcalian ior summary iudgnient. Even the raising at one Iriable issue is sumciern However. inne issues are clear and a matter can be decided wnhmn tne need «or trial, men summary ruognient should be entered so as to not prevenl the Ptaintmirorn tudgrnent [See me cases of National Company For Forulgn Trldl v Knyu Raye Sdn and [19B4]1 uuu Inn; [1 mu] 2 MLJ sou; [MA] I cu (Rap) 233: Modlllul Vulluus sun and v. E-Yank it Sdn Ehd; Able Entororin (M) Sdn Bhd (Third Party) IZIJ23] IIILRHU I561; and sigur Ros Sdn BM 5 Anor v Mnytunk irinrnic BM 5- Anor [2013] MLIU uz] Enciout [a] twin deal witn tnie eopircetion firsl. As nigtiiignieu above. lhe Detenaeni has sougntto stay the entire proceedings rnciuding the summary judgment aopiicatian as a winainottp oemion nes been presented agains1 me neienaant and is saii pending [91 The crux or [he netenoenrs appiicahcrl tor a sniy or proceedings IS premised on Socfion m onne Companlu An ma wnien reads as loiiws: "470.Power of Court to stay or resmin pmeooatnys against company prior to ardu arwinoing up. sin knauwinn/E-Heihsksavw me a oi n 'NnI2 s.ii.i llulflhli M“ r. tn... M mm n. mimruflly MVM5 m.i.i. VII nFiuNG WM! (1; At any iima nflsr iiia pressniaiian ofa winding up periiian and Debts a winding up Order has been niade, ma can-izany Drany auditor at ccinirizmrory niay. wnara any aciion or Pmceedmg against me company is pending, apply to ma Com /0! an order is siay or restrain Ivnnai proceedings in ma aaiion or pmceedmg, and the Court may siay nr iaaiiain ma aciion Of pmcasmng accordingly on such ianns as iiminks fir (2) The appiicani snaii ioaga wnn [he Ragisiiai ins olfice copy of ma may within /ourraan days fmm iiia making al aiiari nniai under subxeclian (1) ~ [10] As axpactea. me Flainlifl iaaiaia Enclosure 2:; and oonlends that me ' ianoaova win ' g—up pamiun does no: naimis cmiiuiam plooeeding u: hear ma dISpu|a naiain as In: ciaini is puieiy a munaiaiy ona naaiaa on ma exlsling agiaaniama and nas nmning In du wiiii ma wmdillgilp pemian. [11] The Plainw Iurlher noniands man as no Winding-up on-xei nus been inaue against me Deiendann. Its Iiabimies are non aivecnea. [121 n is finally oonlended tha| |he oaianaanvs apphcation «oi a slay is an abuse 0! process wuri me view oiaelaying ma Plainiiirs claim hafelll [131 Hlvlng oonasaarea all maltars. i was 0! ma View that maia was no basis to grant a stay at prucaaaings as aougrn in Enclnsum 29. In my view. saeunn no ohm Compnnlu Au mm does no: inanaanaan Iummanc slay a1 pmosadings meraly on ma prasaniaiinn ova windingup pelmon. me 5 M :1 [14] Learned counsel for me Delendanl also snughl to rely on section 472 of mo companies Act 2016 to wnlanc that any dlsooslllcn cl (he pmpany oi as company made 31191 the prescnlalmn of a wlntilrlg-up celrlicn snall unless me caurl elherwlsa orders‘ be void [151 Rellance was placed on the COUI1 cl Appeal decision or Sri J Ind: Sdn Blld V Palllalillk Sdn Ehd [ZINE] 3 MLJ BV2 Io contend MEI the Court has he cvwer to slay Droceedlrlgs so mar nu credllur galrls pnorlly over another. [1 s] The Plamhfi on me other hand refers la lne recenl court of Appeal decision cl lnrarnatiorral conslmsiiorr I. Civil Engineering sdn Bhd v Jlnra Sdn Blld ar Drs [2015] I LMS I252: [2018] IIILRAU :17 whereby lire ccurl at Annual had me cccasion ioalsc consider a slayappllcalren under Slcllofl 470 ol nu Companies Act zine whereby WI dismissing such application, me ocurl of Acpeal enunciated as Vclkmsz “I111 We have read me applmanon, amdavrrs and subrmsslans of the parties A/rer giving much ccnsrderazron to me submissrnns or me lsamsd counsel «or (ha applrcanz, we lake me vlew mat the applrcarron must be alsrrrrssed with costs ourreascrrs inler clla are as fol/aws (a) The threshold to sarlsiy an upphcarron for slay orpmeeedmgs ln conrrasx Io slay oraxecurron VI lms mm and era rs very mgh as me Iriul noun rs required lc dispose of me cases wrmlrl a speclfic urns, axpedlcus/y and Ialrly. The old English cases bslors me coming rnlc elrecl ol Lord woolrs raporl may not be nslpllll. [Sac lukalman, A A s. (1.wa)j. The colm"s posrrrcn Ill England as well as many olhsr ccunlnas fndusivs of Malaysia slN knauwlnzvznrielnsxsavw use 3 e117 ‘Nata s.n.l In-nharwlll re flied M mm .. nnnlnallly cums m.l.n via arlum we 75 that lhe ‘ovarrntnig objeclh/e'ofIhs mun I5 (0 ensure ins: a case /5 deal! with aconornrcaiiy, sxpedniousiy as well asjust/y in sddflion, I the appiicaiion prirna fame is no: Dona fide, the Bowkafl pnncipie wi// not apply andlhs application mm be dismissed Ill Iimina. (n) rne applicanl in W: mass M‘ seeking for slay ufpvomsdings 77! me Hign COM! in reliance cl seciion 44 oiine cm 1964 as well as me innerenijurisimon ollha com Sscrfon 44 does not axplicilly permit in. Court olAppeaI to slay Ins proceedings at (he Nigh Court, unless (I19 app/rcanl can dalnansbsls (ha ‘interim order W//I plsvsnl prey/dice to the claims 11:‘ parties pending me healing pun. proceeding’. The alfidawts filed by the applicant do nor‘ demonstrate lilo Said element and in consequence the reliance ovssuion 44 I8 misDonceived,Secfi‘an 44(1) or me on 1964 stares as /allows: -44 (1) /11 any proceeding pending behave the com omppssi any drrecnon mcidenlal Ihererv not involving the decision or the proceeding. any interim order to prevent plewdice re the ciairns gr parties pending the hearing or the pvoooeding, any order an security for cash‘, and for the dismissal ola proceeding ror default in furnishing sscunly so ovdeled may ac any (INS be made by 5 Judge gr ine com ofAppea/ " (2) The appiicanrs reliance or irihemnl junsdicllon Is also mlsconceivsd. as mars was no sulficism material n ma app(i€am's amaa-nz in dsmansllsla that the order for stay of proceedings is necessary to prevent Injustice The inrssnoia lo ....mn fnvcki tna innersnt tunsdietion ofths com! Is very Mon and it is not sumcient ii the n/iegation is reiatao ta surmise and/or Donjsclure. There must be actual evidence in fact and/at row to dsmanslrxla that ll ins com does not exercise its Inherent /unsoiction, indasti mere will be mtscsnioge orjusncs related to abuse oiptooasa, ah: in loading pass on point is chanes Fons investment Ltd v Amanda [1953] 1 on D 240 In this case the defendant‘ a snarenoidsr, threatened the plalnltff that he mu present a winding-u;7 petition :1 certain 0f his shares were not nzglstelud The company sought an injunction rssframmg tne defendants rrom plssenlmg the petition on the wound that ms action was an abuse oflhs pmcass ollhe com, and A:/aimed tnat me Pemion was one which snouia be struck out unaer me mun’: inherent jurisdiction. mi/inst LJ omen/ad. ‘The pioinmis here invoke tn. mhelanl [tmadiclton of the court to stay pmceedmgs which are vsxaltous of an aouse ottna process or me coon They oo not my on any ofths Rules ol ma Supmme court, out sotoiy upon me inherent /urisdiclton. rns /udgs no/u tnat tms ,unsdtonon should not no axelc/sad unless it were made pot-iectiy stop: that the plea C011/d not succeed He lhan proceeded to consider whether in his viaw VI oouia oa sa/d mat the plea could not possibly succeed. H9 considsrsd, not, me contention tnat the ystirion woutu be bound to fail on its taste, and secondly, the confenlion rhara windmgdlp pemion was the wrung remauy. A: to ma Isflul, he came to the conclusion pleservt and that /I was at less! arguable tnatnnngntoe an appropriate remedym tins am knauwtuzvzmemsks-vw ...,a . V! .. Case As to me other poinl. he WI ms and /all unable to say "V5! on the facts Mrs pafihuil mun necessilflly be bound to farl. Consequently ns cm. 117 the concluston mat this was not a case M which he wauld be [ushfisd M invoking the ttrssttc remedy olha/ring me proceedings m /nnine. Fmm mat decision the ptstnrw oompany appeals 10 ms mun Inesdna:t1LL/saylnatldfffel wtm rsmclsnce Irama decision n/such an expel/sncad/udge as Parmycutck 4., although / rim encouraged by lhe lac! that both my mothers M II": own take the same mw as I do I am bound to say, however, ma! I have IDL/Ild the argument in sttppm ol mts appeal wholly convmcmg, and /am ssttsttea that majudge mm: to 3 wrong condustort. As ta ms umumstsncss tn wntcn lite tnttmnztunsdictton of Me mun may be tnmmt I srmrv/y accept me mdges cautnzn, wmatt he quoted rmnt [ha Annual Practice, 1963, that this ts a junstttctton to be exercised with great cimumspectton " Dartckwerls L.I observed‘ I agree that (he appeal must be allowed. In my vtew, the no "on, if at/owed to proceed. must rat! and the presentation 0/ tin petition woutd be an abuse of the process at [he court and should be pnvented under the tnherenrjurfsdfcfion which the court possesses.‘ [See Janus Key To CM/Procedure, 5" edn. pages 253 and 254]. Fag: 9 nl :1 [151 it is now well eslebiisneit that me coufl will not axeieiae its inherent /urlsdicriori to stay a pmceeding unless these are extremely compelling reasons (0 do sp and rial ineiely on me grounds of wnal is alien ieiened to as ‘interest ouusiicei, elc The srricl rule in vogue is met once an action is filed, it mus! pmceed expeditiously me threshold to seek a stayolpmceedings is vevy nigh in cases beinrs me trial court very iinpalenlly, :1 me Doria lids oltlie application is in doubt, a stay application must be dismissed in iii-nine," [17] In my view, wnilet me oouit does have Ine power to order a stay of proceedings under snatian no Mlhl Complnl n An 2016. (hale have lo be compelling reasnns In du 511 In my WEN, tne nelendant nas laiieu lo wrivinoe me Iha\ compelling ieasons exists I share Ihu View olttie Courl MAppea! in me case :11 lnllrnational conntmctlan A civil Enpinurinp Sdn Bhd (worn) in trial courts should pvooeed expeditiously once an action is filed [18] With resped lo Ieainea eeunsei for me ueienaant, I am unable In agiee Inat pmeeeaing with me niatter nerein oi even n I were to give itiagnient In favnurof the PI Mm would amount la the Flainlifi having a bfller fooling than vlhev possible uedimrs II tnal was the use that would essentially mean that any proeesdinps against a company would have to be stayed as soon as a wlndlng up petition is filed. ‘inst in my view‘ cenainly cannot be me ease and would have senpus repeiemiens and could lead la in abuse al process. In my considered View. every s1ay appllcalmn has to be eensiueiea based on its wwn paiticulai (am: In Inis regard‘ as I nave indicated apaiie. I do not find sulneient reason to grant a stay of pluoeedings on the lacts oi ' SIN kAaDW1DzVEiIHsIhSKiaVw use m I-H11 ‘Nata s.n.i luvihnrwm re tn... M van; me nngllinflly MIME dun-mill VIZ aFiuNG mi

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

DA-83-757-12/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHAMAD HAKIMI BIN SADERI

Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Seksyen 385 kanun Keseksaan OKT mengaku salah - Hukuman pemenjaraan 1 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan dan dikenakan - denda sebanyak RM 3000 gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara - latar belakang OKT diambil kira - prinsip kepentingan awamsebagai suatu faktor pemberatan - deterrent - incapacitation - reformation - intimidation - tahap keseganjaan - degree of deliberateness - victim impact assessment - kesalahan dilakukakn keatas ahli keluarga sendiri - trauma keatas mangsa

10/01/2024

Tuan Rais Imran bin Hamid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=86d61156-db2f-499a-8e96-4a3cef9e0a7e&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. TAHUN 2023 (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Majistret di Kota Bharu,Kelantan Kes tangkap No. DA-83-757-12/2023) ANTARA MOHAMAD HAKIMI BIN SADERI …PERAYU DAN PENDAKWARAYA …RESPONDEN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN [1] Ini merupakan alasan penghakiman berikutan rayuan yang difailkan oleh pihak pembelaan pada 28.12.2023 terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhkan ke atas tertuduh pada 14.12.2023 terhadap satu pertuduhan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 385 kanun Keseksaan. [2] Tertuduh telah dipertuduhkan pada 14.12.2023 dan telah mengaku bersalah. Tertuduh telah disabitkan atas kesalahan dan Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan tertuduh dipenjarakan selama penjara selama tempoh 1 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan (11.12.2023) dan dikenakan denda sebanyak RM 3000 gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara. [3] Pembelaan tidak berpuashati terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhi 10/01/2024 08:53:18 DA-83-757-12/2023 Kand. 9 S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tersebut dan telah memfailkan rayuan atas Hukuman sahaja. PERTUDUHAN [4] Tertuduh di dalam kes ini dituduh pada pada 14.12.2023 di atas satu pertuduhan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 385 Kanun Keseksaan seperti berikut:- "BAHAWA KAMU PADA 10/12/2023 JAM LEBIH KURANG 6.00 PETANG DI ALAMAT LOT 720 KAMPUNG PAUH LIMA , DI DALAM DAERAH KOTA BHARU, DI DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN , DENGAN SENGAJA TELAH MELAKUKAN PEMERASAN TERHADAP IBU KANDUNG KAMU NAMA ROINA BINTI ISMAIL KPT : 710517065066 DIMANA KAMU TELAH MENDATANGKAN KETAKUTAN KEPADANYA UNTUK MEMBAKAR KERETA DAN MENDORONG SUPAYA MENYERAHKAN HARTANYA IAITU WANG TUNAI RM100/, DENGAN ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DI HUKUM DIBAWAH SEKSYEN 385 KANUN KESEKSAAN. HUKUMAN :- DIPENJARAKAN SELAMA SEPULUH TAHUN ATAU DENDA ATAU SEBATAN ATAU MANA- MANA DUA DARIPADANYA” RINGKASAN FAKTA KES [5] Pada 10/12/2023 pada jam lebih kurang 6.00 petang, semasa pengadu/mangsa Roina Binti Ismail berada di rumah Lot 720 Kampung Pauh Lima 16150 Kota Bharu, telah berlaku kekecohan di rumah tersebut apabila anak pengadu yang bernama Muhamad Hakimi Bin Saderi (Tertuduh) telah meminta duit sebanyak RM 100 daripada S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pengadu dan apabila Pengadu tidak memberi wang tersebut dan enggan menurut kemahuan Tertuduh, Tertuduh telah mengamuk dan mengugut untuk membakar kereta Pengadu. [6] Bimbang akan keselamatan dirirnya, Pengadu telah datang ke balai polis untuk mebuat laporan. [7] Lantaran itu, satu tangkapan telah dibuat ke atas Tertuduh sepertimana Binjai Report: 2849/2023 [8] Hasil daripada siasatan dapati tertuduh telah dengan sengaja mendatangkan ketakutan kepada pengadu apabila Tertuduh mengamuk untuk membakar kereta Pengadu sekiranya wang yang diperas ugut oleh Tertuduh daripada Pengadu tidak Pengadu berikan. [9] Tertuduh telah dipertuduhkan dibawah Seskyen 385 Kanun Keseksaan dan mengaku salah sebagaimana pertuduhan dan fakta kes yang dibacakan serta dokumen yang kesemuanya dirujuk kepada kepadanya. RAYUAN MITIGASI TERTUDUH [10] Rayuan mitigasi tertuduh ini telah dihujahkan oleh peguambela sebagaimana berikut dimana Tertuduh menyatakan bahawa dia berumur 25 tahun dan merupakan seorang penganggur yang tidak mempunyai sebarang punca pendapatan. Tertuduh juga memaklumkan bahawa Tertuduh berstatus bujang dan tinggal bersama keluarga. Tertuduh jugak menyatakan bahawa pengakuan salah Tertuduh menjimatkan masa dan kos semua pihak. Tertuduh insaf akan kesalahan dan berjanji tidak akan ulangi kesalahan pada masa akan datang. Tertuduh juga menjelaskan bahawa dia tiada S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal rekod kesalahan lampau. Tertuduh di dalam kes ini telah memohon agar dikenakan hukuman penjara yang paling minimum bermula daripada tarikh tangkapan 11.12.2023. HUJAHAN PEMBERATAN PENDAKWAAN [11] Pendakwaan dalam kes ini menghujahkan bahawa walaupun Tertuduh tiada rekod lampau, namun pohon hukuman setimpal dikenakan keatas Tertuduh dengan mengambil kira faktor kepentingan awam iaitu kepentingan memberi pengajaran kepada Tertuduh agar tidak mengulangi kesalahan ini lagi. Pendakwaan juga memohon hukuman yang setimpal dengan gravity kesalahan ini. Pendakwaan selanjutnya memohon hukuman berbentuk pengajaran kepada Tertuduh dan masyarakat awam agar mematuhi undang – undang negara. KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH [12] Setelah menerima pengakuan bersalah Tertuduh dan setelah menentusahkan bahawa Tertuduh faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah atas pertuduhan yang dibacakan kepadanya setelah penalti pertuduhan itu dijelaskan kepada Tertuduh, serta setelah menimbangkan serta memperhalusi eksibit-eksibit pembuktian yang dikemukan besertakan hujahan – hujahan pembelaan dan pendakwaan, maka Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh bersalah dan Tertuduh disabitkan bagi kesalahan sepertimana pertuduhan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh 1 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan (11.12.2023) dan dikenakan denda sebanyak RM 3000 gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara. ALASAN-ALASAN BAGI HUKUMAN YANG DIBERIKAN KEATAS TERTUDUH S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [13] Beberapa faktor telah diberi pertimbangan oleh Mahkamah ini sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman:- PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG MENGENAI HUKUMAN [14] Undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa Mahkamah hendaklah menjatuhkan hukuman mengikut undang-undang apabila tertuduh telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan bagi pertuduhan tersebut. Mahkamah merujuk kepada Seksyen 183 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (selepas ini akan dirujuk sebagai "KTJ") yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut:- "If the accused is convicted, the Court shall pass sentence according to law" [15] Dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. JAFA BIN DAUD [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315, Mohamed Azmi J (pada ketika itu) telah menyatakan: "A 'sentence according to law' means that the sentence 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. [16] Terdapat begitu banyak nas-nas undang-undang yang memberikan panduan mengenai prinsip undang-undang yang perlu dipatuhi dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap tertuduh. Mahkamah ingin merujuk kepada penghakiman Hilbery J di dalam kes REX V. KENNETH JOHN BALL 35 Cr App R 164 juga lazim dipetik yang memutuskan seperti berikut: "In deciding the appropriate sentence a Court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 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. … "It is for these reasons, and with these purposes in view, that before passing sentence the Court hears evidence of the antecedents and character of every convicted person. [17] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah juga ingin merujuk kepada kes BHANDULANANDA JAYATILAKE V. PP [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- "...The very concept of judicial discretion involves a right to choose between more that one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred. That is quite inevitable. Human nature being what it is, different judges applying the same principles at the same time in the same country to similar facts may sometimes reach different conclusions (see Jamieson v. Jamieson [1952] AC 525 at 549). It is for that reason that some very conscientious judges have thought it S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal their duty to visit particular crimes with exemplary sentences; whilst others equally conscientious have thought it their duty to view the same crimes with leniency. 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. [18] Berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip hukuman yang dirujuk oleh Mahkamah, adalah dapat disimpulkan bahawa dalam menjatuhkan hukuman, Mahkamah perlu membuat pertimbangan terhadap faktor-faktor seperti keseriusan kesalahan, keadaan yang mengelilingi perilaku jenayah yang terlibat, latar-belakang (antecedent) tertuduh, faktor pencegahan serta sama ada terdapatnya faktor peringanan yang memihak kepada tertuduh. Hakim Hashim Yeop Sani dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. LOO CHOON FATT [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 276 telah menyatakan seperti berikut:- "The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused." [19] Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa hukuman yang dijatuhkan mestilah sepadan ("proportionate") dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh. Prinsip "proportionality" ini telah dijelaskan dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan MOHAMAD NASUHA ABDUL RAZAK V. PP [2019] 3 CLJ 612; [2020] 3 MLJ 530; di mana Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:- S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal "[14] Be that as it may, one of the important factors that we must bear in mind is that the sentence must always satisfy the principle of proportionality - that the severity of the penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The principle was articulated by the High Court of Australia in Hoare v. R [1989] 167 CLR 458 at 354 as follows: a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances. ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [20] Dalam kes ini, setelah mendengar hujahan pendakwaan dan rayuan mitigasi Tertuduh, Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh bersalah dan disabitkan dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh 1 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan (11.12.2023) dan dikenakan denda sebanyak RM 3000 gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara atas dasar: A) PENGAKUAN BERSALAH TERTUDUH [21] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pengakuan salah Tertuduh wajar diambil kira oleh Mahkamah kerana ianya telah menjimatkan masa dan kos semua pihak. Malah, pengakuan salah Tertuduh juga telah menjimatkan masa saksi-saksi dan kebimbangan saksi-saksi untuk hadir memberi keterangan di Mahkamah. Perkara ini telah diputuskan dalam kes SAU SOO KIM V. PP [1975] 1 LNS 158, seperti berikut:- S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal "Whether a person is a hardened criminal or not, I feel that a plea of guilty should be treated as a mitigating factor. It not only saves the country a great expense of a lengthy trial but also saves time and inconvenience of many, particularly the witnesses". [22] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. RAVINDRAN & ORS [1992] 1 LNS 47; [1993] 1 MLJ 45, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah merumuskan secara menyeluruh bahawa faktor-faktor yang perlu diambil kira berkenaan prinsip pengakuan bersalah tertuduh seperti berikut:- "(i) It is an accepted rule of practice that an accused person should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty. The rationale for this rule is that much public time and money will be spared if an accused admits his guilt, thus avoiding a prolonged and unnecessary trial. This rule however, is not a strict rule as the courts may, in exercise of their discretion, in exceptional cases, refuse to grant any discount. (ii) a plea of guilty will entitle the accused person to a discount of between one-quarter to one-third of the sentence. (iii) failure on the part of a judge in not granting credit or discounts may result in the judge not exercising his discretion in sentencing judicially. (iv) the credit or discount to be given in favour of the accused person is not on the maximum sentence imposed by law but rather on a sentence which would have been imposed on the accused if he had claimed trial and had been found guilty." S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [23] Walaupun diskaun atau credit bukan diberikan secara automatik kepada tertuduh setelah mengaku salah sepertimana yang diputuskan dalam kes PP V. RAVINDRAN (Supra), Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pengakuan bersalah Tertuduh ini tidak boleh diabaikan sewenang- wenangnya tanpa alasan yang munasabah lebih-lebih lagi kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh dalam kes ini bukan merupakan kesalahan yang bersifat serius ataupun bersifat zalim (heinous). Prinsip ini telah diputuskan dalam kes TAN LAY CHEN V. PP [2000] 4 CLJ 492; [2001] 1 MLJ 135 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan seperti berikut:- "It must not be overlooked that the general rule is that an accused should be given a lesser punishment for pleading guilty. There can, as I have said, be a departure from this general rule. However, there must be good reasons for doing so. In that event the reasons for such departure must be kept in mind. If, therefore, a sentence is imposed without taking into consideration a guilty plea then the reasons for doing so must be explained by the sentencer. This is because an accused person expects the general rule to operate in his favour when he pleads guilty. The grounds of judgment must therefore show why the guilty plea cannot, on the facts of the case, be considered as a mitigating factor" [24] Mahkamah juga mempertimbangkan bahawa bagi membolehkan pengakuan bersalah menjadi faktor mitigasi yang kuat, ia hendaklah dibuat pada peluang terawal sepertimana yang telah diputuskan di dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. KAMMOON WANNGA & ANOR [2009] 8 MLJ 430: “[19] It is, therefore, desirous that the plea of guilty be entered at an earliest reasonable opportunity before the witnesses give evidence S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal in the trial. Only then such a plea may be considered as a meaningful mitigating factor.” [25] Walaubagimanapun Mahkamah ini turut mengambil maklum bahawa seperti mana dijelaskan dalam kes PP v. Low Kok Wai [1988] 2 CLJ 105; [1988] 2 CLJ (Rep) 268; [1988] 3 MLJ 123 yang diputuskan oleh Mohamed Dzaiddin J (kemudian Ketua Hakim Negara) bahawa undang - undang turut menjelaskan bahawa pengakuan salah tidaklah begitu efektif apabila tidak terdapat apa-apa pembelaan yang berpihak kepada OKT. [26] Berbalik kepada kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah mendapati faktor pengakuan bersalah sebagai suatu faktor peringanan yang melayakkan peringanan hukuman terhadap Tertuduh. [27] Tertuduh telah mengaku salah pada peluang terawal dan sebelum perbicaraan bermula atau saksi-saksi dipanggil. Justeru itu, pengakuan salah Tertuduh sudah semestinya menjadi suatu faktor mitigasi yang penting. Apatah lagi tiada keterangan untuk menunjukkan bahawa Tertuduh merupakan seorang pesalah tegar atau “hardened criminal”. B) LATAR BELAKANG DAN PERLAKUAN TERTUDUH SELEPAS DITUDUH [28] Mahkamah turut mengambil kira faktor latar belakang Tertuduh. Di dalam mitigasinya peguambela yang bijaksana telah mengemukakan perkara-perkara berikut: a) Tertuduh menyatakan bahawa dia berumur 25 tahun. b) Tertuduh tiada pekerjaan S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal c) Tertuduh berstatus bujang. d) Tertuduh juga menjelaskan bahawa dia tiada rekod kesalahan lampau. [29] Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa faktor-faktor yang dihujahkan sepertimana diatas merupakan faktor mitigasi yang boleh dipertimbangkan sepertimana dijelaskan dalam Seksyen 176 (r) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [30] Faktor bahawa Tertuduh menyatakan bahawa beliau telah insaf dan berjanji untuk tidak mengulangi kesalahn ini lagi pada masa yang akan dating selepas beliau dipertuduhkan atas pertuduhan ini juga telah diambil kira oleh Mahkamah sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap Tertuduh. C) KEPENTINGAN AWAM [31] Sekalipun wujud faktor-faktor mitigasi seperti mana yang dihujahkan oleh Tertuduh namun menjadi tanggungjawab Mahkamah ini juga memperhalusi faktor- faktor pemberatan yang berkaitan dalam kes ini dalam mempertimbangkan kuantum hukuman yang berseusaian dengan kesalahan Tertuduh seperti mana dipertuduhkan. [32] Mahkamah juga sedia maklum mengenai prinsip kepentingan awam sebagai suatu faktor pemberatan yang sering kali ditekankan oleh pihak pendakwaan supaya hukuman yang bakal dijatuhkan dapat memberi pengajaran kepada tertuduh ("deterrent") dan orang awam supaya tidak mengulangi kesalahan yang sama pada masa akan datang. [33] Dalam pada itu, Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa dalam menjalankan proses perimbangan antara pelbagai kepentingan yang seharusnya diambil pertimbangan oleh Mahkamah ini dalam menjatuhkan suatu S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal hukuman, prinsip pertama dan utama yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman dalam kes jenayah ialah faktor kepentingan awam. [34] Ini adalah sepertimana yang dijelaskan dalam kes ABU BAKAR BIN ALIF V. R [1953] 1 MLJ 19 oleh Spenser Wilkinson J yang memetik penghakiman dalam kes REX V. BALL (supra): "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. … "It is for these reasons, and with these purposes in view, that before passing sentence the Court hears evidence of the antecedents and character of every convicted person. [35] Selain itu juga, dalam mempertimbangkan apa hukuman yang bersesuaian untuk dikenakan keatas Tertuduh, Mahkamah perlu mengambil kira tunjang penggubalan sesuatu peruntukan undang- S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal undang seperti dinyatakan dalam kes PP v LOO CHOON FATT (supra) oleh Hashim Yeop Sani J: It is common sense to say that behind these legislative exercises was the government's realisation albeit gradual, of the problemof 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. [36] Selain daripada itu juga, dalam mempertimbangkan apa hukuman yang bersesuaian untuk dikenakan keatas Tertuduh, Mahkamah perlu juga tidak boleh terlalu bersimpati dengan mitigasi seperti kesusahan keluarga, kerjaya tamat dan lain-lain: [37] Ini adalah sepertimana yang dijelaskan dalam kes PP v LOO CHOON FATT (supra) oleh Hashim Yeop Sani J: Presidents and Magistrates are often inclined quite naturally to be over-sympathetic to the accused. This is a normal psychological reaction to the situation in which the lonely accused is seen facing an array of witnesses with authority. The mitigation submitted by a convicted person will also normally bring up problems of family hardship and the other usual problems of living. In such a situation the courts might perhaps find it difficult to decide as to what sentence should be imposed so that the convicted person may not be further burdened with additional hardship. This in my view is a wrong approach. The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused. Lord Goddard L.C.J. in Rex v Grondkowski [1946] 1 All ER 560 561 offered some good advice when he said:– "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 means only the interests of the prisoners." [38] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan bersekali dengan denda yang dikenakan terhadap Tertuduh dalam kes ini merupakan satu bentuk hukuman yang mampu menjaga kepentingan awam. Hal ini kerana, Tertuduh dalam kes ini tidak terlepas begitu sahaja dengan suatu hukuman yang terlampau rendah yang tidak mencerminkan gravity kesalahan yang dilakukan / “a mere slap at the wrist”. [39] Bahkan Tertuduh Mahkamah berpandangan hukuman yang diberikan keatas Tertuduh ini atas sabitan bagi kesalahan yang dilakukannya adalah suatu hukuman yang berpatutan dengan gravity kesalahan itu disisi undang -undang iaitu dengan sengaja memeras ugut Pengadu secara mendatangkan ketakutan kepada pengadu apabila Tertuduh mengamuk untuk membakar kereta Pengadu sekiranya wang yang diperas ugut oleh Tertuduh daripada Pengadu tidak Pengadu berikan. [40] Tempoh pemenjaraan dan kuantum denda yang dikenakan keatas Tertuduh dinilai oleh Mahkamah ini sebagai suatu tempoh dan kuantum yang berpadanan bagi memberikan Tertuduh ruang dan peluang yang mencukupi untuk melakukan muhasabah diri agar Tertuduh sedar bahawa setiap tindakan yang dilakukannya mempunyai sebab dan akibat yang perlu ditanggung. Ini dilihat mampu untuk memberikan pengajaran S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal yang berguna keatas Tertuduh secara khusus dan masyarakat awam secara umumnya agar berfikir panjang sebelum terdetik dalam fikiran untuk melakukan apa jua perbuatan jenayah. [41] Ini selaras dengan prinsip dalam kes PP V SULAIMAN BIN AHMAD [1993] 1 MLJ 74 yang mana Abdul Malik Ishak J menyatakan: The learned editors of 10 Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed) at p 487 state as follows: The object of punishment is the prevention of crime, and every punishment is intended to have a double effect, namely, to prevent the person who has committed a crime from repeating the act or omission and to prevent other members of the community from committing similar crimes. [42] Berbalik kepada kes semasa, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa dengan menjatuhkan hukuman sedemikian rupa keatas Tertuduh maka dengan secara langsung hukuman tersebut dapat menyumbang kearah tercapainya tiga objektif bagi mengekang Tertuduh daripada terlibat dengan mana-mana kesalahan jenayah, iaitu secara: (1) dengan mengambil daripadanya keupayaan untuk melakukan jenayah (incapacitation); (2) dengan menghilangkan keinginan untuk melakukan jenayah (reformation); (3) dengan membuat dia takut untuk melakukan jenayah (intimidation) S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [43] Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa dimensi kepentingan awam dalam kes ini akan terjaga melalui hukuman pemenjaraan dan denda yang dikenakan keatas Tertuduh memandangkan hukuman tersebut dilihat bersesuaian dengan kepentingan agar episod jenayah yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh ini dijadikan iktibar kepada Tertuduh secara khusus dan masyarakat awam secara umumnya agar menginsafi kepentingan menjaga kesentosaan awam dengan menghindari daripada mendatangkan ketakutan kepada sesiapa pun dengan cara memeras ugut untuk mendapatkan wang . D) TAHAP KESENGAJAAN (DEGREE OF DELIBERATENESS) [47] Selain itu, dalam menghakimi kes ini, Mahkamah turut mengambil pendekatan untuk mempertimbangkan tahap kesengajaan Tertuduh sewaktu melakukan jenayah sebagai panduan dalam memutuskan hukuman yang bersesuaian ke atasnya, dimana pendekatan ini dapat dilihat aplikasinya dalam penghakiman Willan CJ dalam kes MOHAMED JUSOH ABDULLAH & ANOTHER V. PP [1947] 1 LNS 73; [1947] 1 MLJ 130 yang ada menyatakan: 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. [48] Dalam menjalankan perimbangan berkaitan tahap kesengajaan yang wujud dalam kes Tertuduh, Mahkamah ini telahpun mengambil maklum keperluan untuk mempertimbangkan kewujudan faktor-faktor yang memihak kepada Tertuduh, seperti ditegaskan oleh VT Singham J S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal di dalam kes PP V. AHMAD KHAIRUL FA’AIS MAT DAHLAN & ORS [2006] 6 CLJ 555: ... The offence committed by the accused is serious and the degree of seriousness must be reflected on the sentence imposed but at the same time, the court must also have regard to the proportion between the offence, the punishment provided by law, the mitigating plea, and any extenuating circumstances which might exist and to be in favour of the accused. [49] Setelah meneliti fakta kes dan melakukan proses perimbangan yang jitu, saya mendapati bahawa tahap kesengajaan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh dalam perlakuan jenayahnya jauh mengatasi faktor-faktor yang memihak kepada Tertuduh, lantas menatijahkan hukuman sepertimana yang diputuskan Mahkamah ini keatas Tertuduh tempoh hari. [50] Sekalipun Tertuduh menyatakan keinsafannya atas perlakuan jenayah yang telah dilakukan dan pada masa yang sama Tertuduh meberikan akujanjinya untuk tidak lagi mengulangi perbuatan yang sama, namun Mahkamah ini mendapati Tertuduh ini dengan sengaja mendatangkan ketakutan kepada ibunya sendiri dengan cara memeras ugut untuk mendapatkan wang. [51] Perkara ini jelas terlihat daripada tindakan Tertuduh yang pada Pada 10/12/2023 pada jam lebih kurang 6.00 petang, semasa Pengadu berada di rumah, dimana telah berlaku kekecohan di rumah tersebut apabila anak pengadu iaitu Tertuduh telah meminta duit sebanyak RM 100 daripada Pengadu dan apabila Pengadu tidak memberi wang tersebut dan enggan menurut kemahuan Tertuduh, Tertuduh telah S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mengamuk dan mengugut untuk membakar kereta Pengadu. [52] Kejadian tersebut telah menimbulkan rasa bimbang akan keselamatan Pengadu lantas menyebabkan Pengadu telah datang ke balai polis untuk mebuat laporan. [53] Fakta ini diakui sendiri oleh Tertuduh seasa pengakuan salah serta disokong oleh dokumen – dokumen pembuktian yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwaan sewaktu prosiding berjalan. [54] Sememangnya diakui Tertuduh mengaku salah sewaktu pertuduhan dibacakan kepadanya namun sekiranya disoroti fakta kes tersebut, amatlah jelas bahawa tindakan jenayah yang dilakukannya adalah disengajakan dimana tindak tanduk Tertuduh semasa kejadian jenayah berlaku menunjukkan keenggannya untuk patuh kepada undang undang dalam keadaan sedar dan seharusnya hukuman yang diberikan perlulah mencerminkan graviti perbuatan tersebut dan keperluan untuk memberi iktibar kepada Tertuduh dan masyarakat bahawa undang- undang mengambil serius tindakan jenayah sebegitu rupa. [55] Kesemua itu seperti yang diperi Hakim Ajaib Singh J, dalam kecualian yang disebut dalam kes CHAN SIT HOONG V. PP (supra), sepertimana berikut: A first offender, be he on a drug charge or some other criminal charge, should be dealt with by the imposition of a fine or by placing him under bond or probation, but he should be kept away from prison unless there are, in the public interest, strong reasons for ordering a term of imprisonment, such as the gravity of the offence itself and the manner in which it is committed, or as a deterrent when the prevalence of a particular type of offence S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal has truly reached a stage that a sentence of imprisonment alone may deter others from committing that type of offence. [56] Pertimbangan kepentingan awam dalam kes pemerasan adalah amat jelas seperti yang dapat dilihat dalam kes LING KAI HUAT & ANOR V. PP [1965] 1 MLJ 12 iaitu sebuah kes melibatkan jenayah peras ugut terhadap orang awam, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan hukuman pemenjaraan yang berpatutan dengan graviti kesalahan pemerasan keatas orang awam adalah selama 12 bulan. [57] Berbalik kepada kes semasa, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang telahpun dijatuhkan keatas Tertuduh merupakan hukuman yang bersesuaian bagi kes ini memandangkan berbanding kes LING KAI HUAT & ANOR V. PP [1965] (supra) yang hanya melibatkan orang awam, jenayah peras ugut yang dilakukan keatas Pengadu memberikan kesan yang lebih besar kepada pengadu memandangkan kejadian dilakukan oleh Tertuduh yang mempunyai hubungan darah yang dekat dengan Pengad. [58] Kesan kejadian peras ugut oleh Tertuduh bukanlah bersifat abstrak sebaliknya telahpun meninggalkan kesan yang nyata dalam kehidupan Tertuduh. Perkara ini adalah amat jelas sekiranya Pernyataan Impak Mangsa/ Victim Impact Statement (Eksibit P6) yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwaan diamati dengan cermat. [59] Pengadu menyatakan dalam Pernyataan Impak Mangsa/ Victim Impact Statement (Eksibit P6) tersebut bahawa akibat perbuatan pemerasan keatas dirinya oleh Tertuduh, Pengadu (a) Berasa bimbang akan keselamatan dirinya dan keluarga. S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (b) Berasa sangat takut dan trauma dengan kejadian yang menimpa dirinya (c) Pengadu berasa takut untuk pulang ke rumah (d) Pengadu berasa takut Tertuduh berdendam dengan Pengadu apabila Pengadu keluar penjara nanti. [60] Atas pertimbangan tersebut Mahkamah berpendapat sekalipun Tertuduh memohon supaya dia hanya dikenakan hukuman penjara, namun hukuman yang dipohon, pada hemat Mahkamah, adalah tidak berpatutan dengan graviti kesalahan yang Tertuduh lakukan keatas keluarga terdekatnya iaitu ibunya sendiri. [61] Mahkamah berpandangan, tempoh pemenjaraan yang telahpun diputuskan tersebut bersifat serampang dua mata kerana bukan sahaja bermanfaat kepada Tertuduh dalam menyediakan ruang masa yang bersesuaian untuk Tertuduh menginsafi kesalahan yang telahpun dilakukanya dan berinisiatif untuk memperbaiki diri melalui sistem pemenjaraan namun hukuman tersebut juga bermanfaat kepada Pengadu memandangkan tempoh pemenjaraan yang diputuskan membuka ruang dan peluang untuk Pengadu merawat luka dan trauma akibat insiden yang berlaku kepadanya sepanjang tempoh pengasingan Pengadu dengan Tertuduh. [62] Setidak-tidaknya, sepanjang tempoh tertuduh berada dalam jagaan penjara, keselamatan Pengadu adalah terjamin daripada berulangnya semula insiden pemerasan yang sama yang Pengadu sendiri risau akan berulang sekiranya Tertuduh tidak diasingkan daripada Pengadu untuk suatu tempoh yang lama. [63] Mitigasi Tertuduh telah saya ambil maklum dan pertimbangkan S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal sebaik-baiknya bersama-sama faktor-faktor yang telah saya huraikan sebelum ini. Walaubagaimanapun Tertuduh seharusnya menghayati kebijaksanaan dalam pepatah melayu lama; “sudah terhantuk barulah tengadah”. Tertuduh seharusnya sedar daripada awal SEBELUM dan bukanlah hanya SELEPAS kesalahan itu dilakukan bahawa kesusahan peribadi dan beban bakal menimpa Tertuduh sekiranya Tertuduh masih dengan sengaja melanggar undang-undang. [64] Dalam perkara ini saya merujuk keputusan Hakim Eusoffe Abdoolcader HMT di dalam kes PP V. TEH AH CHENG [1976] 1 LNS 116; [1976] 2 MLJ 186 yang menjelaskan: The respondent also puts forward in his plea in mitigation the fact that he is employed and supports an aged mother and step- brothers. He should of course have thought of this before committing the offences and not after; he is in fact pleading hardship arising from the consequences of his own acts and I would reiterate what I had occasion previously to observe in another case that an offender should not expect to excite or harness any sympathy on an ipse dixit by taking the stance of the impetuous youth who killed his parents with an axe and then pleaded in mitigation that he was an orphan. [65] Mengambil maklum perkembangan tersebut dan perkaitannya dengan kes yang dipertuduhkan keatas Tertuduh kali ini, Mahkamah mengambil pendekatan untuk mengangkat kepentingan awam melalui hukuman yang bersesuaian sepertimana yang dijatuhkan keatas Tertuduh. [66] Mahkamah mendasarkan pendapat ini kepada penghakiman Hakim S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Abdul Malik Ishak HMR di dalam kes SINNATHURAI SUBRAMANIAM V. PP [2011] 5 CLJ 56: The public interest element is a bare shell. It is shaped and coloured by the facts of the case, by the surrounding circumstances that compelled the Court to take into account before sentencing and, more importantly, by the mores of a particular society. [67] Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa dalam isu berkepentingan awam seperti soal menghormati ibu bapa yang membesarkan Tertuduh “bagai menatang minyak yang penuh”, Mahkamah mempunyai peranan untuk mengetuai pandangan umum untuk menunjukkan betapa masyarakat memandang hina perbuatan pemerasan terhadap ibu bapa sendiri seperti yang dilakukan Tertuduh terhadap Pengadu. [68] Atas dasar tersebut Mahkamah berpandangan adalah tidak mencukupi untuk Tertuduh hanya dihukum dengan pemenjaraan, sebaknya dihukum dengan gabungan hukuman pemenjaraan dan pembayaran denda untuk menunjukkan bahawa berbanding jenayah peras ugut terhadap orang kebanyakan seperti kebiasaannya, perlakuan jenayah peras ugut antara ahli keluarga sendiri apatah lagi antara anak dan ibubapa sehingga menyebabkan ketakutan yang jelas dan trauma emosi kepada mangsa seperti yang Pengadu deposkan dalam Pernyataan Impak Saksi / Victim Impact Assessment (Eksibit P6) hendaklah dihukum dengan hukuman yang berbeza sebagai perlambanagan betapa hinanya jenayah tersebut disisi mata masyarakat umum. [69] Ini dinukil dalam kes R V. SARGEANT [1974] 60 Cr App R yang saya jadikan sebagai dasar dalam menjatuhkan hukuman yang S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal bersesuaian dalam kes Tertuduh kali ini. Penghakiman itu ada menyebut: ... it is that society, through the courts, must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime, and the only way in which the courts can show this is by the sentences they pass. The courts do not have to reflect public opinion. On the other hand, courts must not disregard it. Perhaps the main duty of the court is to lead public opinion. KESIMPULAN [70] Berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa keputusan Mahkamah ini adalah adil, wajar dan munasabah bagi sabitan dan hukuman sepertimana yang telah diberikan kepada Tertuduh. Disediakan oleh, ………………………………… (RAIS IMRAN BIN HAMID) Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kota Bharu. Kelantan Bagi Pendakwaan: Timbalan Pendakwaraya Syazalia Binti Che Suhaimin (Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan) Bagi Pembelaan: Nik Nasrun Nazmi Nik Mohamad (Habibah Nik & Co.) S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. TAHUN 2023 ANTARA DAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PERTUDUHAN RINGKASAN FAKTA KES RAYUAN MITIGASI TERTUDUH HUJAHAN PEMBERATAN PENDAKWAAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH ALASAN-ALASAN BAGI HUKUMAN YANG DIBERIKAN KEATAS TERTUDUH PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG MENGENAI HUKUMAN ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH A) PENGAKUAN BERSALAH TERTUDUH B) LATAR BELAKANG DAN PERLAKUAN TERTUDUH SELEPAS DITUDUH C) KEPENTINGAN AWAM KESIMPULAN (RAIS IMRAN BIN HAMID) Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kota Bharu. Kelantan 2024-01-10T09:02:13+0800

Tika 2.6.0

DA-83-757-12/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHAMAD HAKIMI BIN SADERI

Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Seksyen 385 kanun Keseksaan OKT mengaku salah - Hukuman pemenjaraan 1 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan dan dikenakan - denda sebanyak RM 3000 gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara - latar belakang OKT diambil kira - prinsip kepentingan awamsebagai suatu faktor pemberatan - deterrent - incapacitation - reformation - intimidation - tahap keseganjaan - degree of deliberateness - victim impact assessment - kesalahan dilakukakn keatas ahli keluarga sendiri - trauma keatas mangsa

10/01/2024

Tuan Rais Imran bin Hamid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=86d61156-db2f-499a-8e96-4a3cef9e0a7e&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. TAHUN 2023 (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Majistret di Kota Bharu,Kelantan Kes tangkap No. DA-83-757-12/2023) ANTARA MOHAMAD HAKIMI BIN SADERI …PERAYU DAN PENDAKWARAYA …RESPONDEN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN [1] Ini merupakan alasan penghakiman berikutan rayuan yang difailkan oleh pihak pembelaan pada 28.12.2023 terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhkan ke atas tertuduh pada 14.12.2023 terhadap satu pertuduhan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 385 kanun Keseksaan. [2] Tertuduh telah dipertuduhkan pada 14.12.2023 dan telah mengaku bersalah. Tertuduh telah disabitkan atas kesalahan dan Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan tertuduh dipenjarakan selama penjara selama tempoh 1 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan (11.12.2023) dan dikenakan denda sebanyak RM 3000 gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara. [3] Pembelaan tidak berpuashati terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhi 10/01/2024 08:53:18 DA-83-757-12/2023 Kand. 9 S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tersebut dan telah memfailkan rayuan atas Hukuman sahaja. PERTUDUHAN [4] Tertuduh di dalam kes ini dituduh pada pada 14.12.2023 di atas satu pertuduhan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 385 Kanun Keseksaan seperti berikut:- "BAHAWA KAMU PADA 10/12/2023 JAM LEBIH KURANG 6.00 PETANG DI ALAMAT LOT 720 KAMPUNG PAUH LIMA , DI DALAM DAERAH KOTA BHARU, DI DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN , DENGAN SENGAJA TELAH MELAKUKAN PEMERASAN TERHADAP IBU KANDUNG KAMU NAMA ROINA BINTI ISMAIL KPT : 710517065066 DIMANA KAMU TELAH MENDATANGKAN KETAKUTAN KEPADANYA UNTUK MEMBAKAR KERETA DAN MENDORONG SUPAYA MENYERAHKAN HARTANYA IAITU WANG TUNAI RM100/, DENGAN ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DI HUKUM DIBAWAH SEKSYEN 385 KANUN KESEKSAAN. HUKUMAN :- DIPENJARAKAN SELAMA SEPULUH TAHUN ATAU DENDA ATAU SEBATAN ATAU MANA- MANA DUA DARIPADANYA” RINGKASAN FAKTA KES [5] Pada 10/12/2023 pada jam lebih kurang 6.00 petang, semasa pengadu/mangsa Roina Binti Ismail berada di rumah Lot 720 Kampung Pauh Lima 16150 Kota Bharu, telah berlaku kekecohan di rumah tersebut apabila anak pengadu yang bernama Muhamad Hakimi Bin Saderi (Tertuduh) telah meminta duit sebanyak RM 100 daripada S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pengadu dan apabila Pengadu tidak memberi wang tersebut dan enggan menurut kemahuan Tertuduh, Tertuduh telah mengamuk dan mengugut untuk membakar kereta Pengadu. [6] Bimbang akan keselamatan dirirnya, Pengadu telah datang ke balai polis untuk mebuat laporan. [7] Lantaran itu, satu tangkapan telah dibuat ke atas Tertuduh sepertimana Binjai Report: 2849/2023 [8] Hasil daripada siasatan dapati tertuduh telah dengan sengaja mendatangkan ketakutan kepada pengadu apabila Tertuduh mengamuk untuk membakar kereta Pengadu sekiranya wang yang diperas ugut oleh Tertuduh daripada Pengadu tidak Pengadu berikan. [9] Tertuduh telah dipertuduhkan dibawah Seskyen 385 Kanun Keseksaan dan mengaku salah sebagaimana pertuduhan dan fakta kes yang dibacakan serta dokumen yang kesemuanya dirujuk kepada kepadanya. RAYUAN MITIGASI TERTUDUH [10] Rayuan mitigasi tertuduh ini telah dihujahkan oleh peguambela sebagaimana berikut dimana Tertuduh menyatakan bahawa dia berumur 25 tahun dan merupakan seorang penganggur yang tidak mempunyai sebarang punca pendapatan. Tertuduh juga memaklumkan bahawa Tertuduh berstatus bujang dan tinggal bersama keluarga. Tertuduh jugak menyatakan bahawa pengakuan salah Tertuduh menjimatkan masa dan kos semua pihak. Tertuduh insaf akan kesalahan dan berjanji tidak akan ulangi kesalahan pada masa akan datang. Tertuduh juga menjelaskan bahawa dia tiada S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal rekod kesalahan lampau. Tertuduh di dalam kes ini telah memohon agar dikenakan hukuman penjara yang paling minimum bermula daripada tarikh tangkapan 11.12.2023. HUJAHAN PEMBERATAN PENDAKWAAN [11] Pendakwaan dalam kes ini menghujahkan bahawa walaupun Tertuduh tiada rekod lampau, namun pohon hukuman setimpal dikenakan keatas Tertuduh dengan mengambil kira faktor kepentingan awam iaitu kepentingan memberi pengajaran kepada Tertuduh agar tidak mengulangi kesalahan ini lagi. Pendakwaan juga memohon hukuman yang setimpal dengan gravity kesalahan ini. Pendakwaan selanjutnya memohon hukuman berbentuk pengajaran kepada Tertuduh dan masyarakat awam agar mematuhi undang – undang negara. KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH [12] Setelah menerima pengakuan bersalah Tertuduh dan setelah menentusahkan bahawa Tertuduh faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah atas pertuduhan yang dibacakan kepadanya setelah penalti pertuduhan itu dijelaskan kepada Tertuduh, serta setelah menimbangkan serta memperhalusi eksibit-eksibit pembuktian yang dikemukan besertakan hujahan – hujahan pembelaan dan pendakwaan, maka Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh bersalah dan Tertuduh disabitkan bagi kesalahan sepertimana pertuduhan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan selama tempoh 1 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan (11.12.2023) dan dikenakan denda sebanyak RM 3000 gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara. ALASAN-ALASAN BAGI HUKUMAN YANG DIBERIKAN KEATAS TERTUDUH S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [13] Beberapa faktor telah diberi pertimbangan oleh Mahkamah ini sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman:- PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG MENGENAI HUKUMAN [14] Undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa Mahkamah hendaklah menjatuhkan hukuman mengikut undang-undang apabila tertuduh telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan bagi pertuduhan tersebut. Mahkamah merujuk kepada Seksyen 183 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (selepas ini akan dirujuk sebagai "KTJ") yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut:- "If the accused is convicted, the Court shall pass sentence according to law" [15] Dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. JAFA BIN DAUD [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315, Mohamed Azmi J (pada ketika itu) telah menyatakan: "A 'sentence according to law' means that the sentence 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. [16] Terdapat begitu banyak nas-nas undang-undang yang memberikan panduan mengenai prinsip undang-undang yang perlu dipatuhi dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap tertuduh. Mahkamah ingin merujuk kepada penghakiman Hilbery J di dalam kes REX V. KENNETH JOHN BALL 35 Cr App R 164 juga lazim dipetik yang memutuskan seperti berikut: "In deciding the appropriate sentence a Court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 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. … "It is for these reasons, and with these purposes in view, that before passing sentence the Court hears evidence of the antecedents and character of every convicted person. [17] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah juga ingin merujuk kepada kes BHANDULANANDA JAYATILAKE V. PP [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- "...The very concept of judicial discretion involves a right to choose between more that one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred. That is quite inevitable. Human nature being what it is, different judges applying the same principles at the same time in the same country to similar facts may sometimes reach different conclusions (see Jamieson v. Jamieson [1952] AC 525 at 549). It is for that reason that some very conscientious judges have thought it S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal their duty to visit particular crimes with exemplary sentences; whilst others equally conscientious have thought it their duty to view the same crimes with leniency. 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. [18] Berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip hukuman yang dirujuk oleh Mahkamah, adalah dapat disimpulkan bahawa dalam menjatuhkan hukuman, Mahkamah perlu membuat pertimbangan terhadap faktor-faktor seperti keseriusan kesalahan, keadaan yang mengelilingi perilaku jenayah yang terlibat, latar-belakang (antecedent) tertuduh, faktor pencegahan serta sama ada terdapatnya faktor peringanan yang memihak kepada tertuduh. Hakim Hashim Yeop Sani dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. LOO CHOON FATT [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 276 telah menyatakan seperti berikut:- "The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused." [19] Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa hukuman yang dijatuhkan mestilah sepadan ("proportionate") dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh. Prinsip "proportionality" ini telah dijelaskan dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan MOHAMAD NASUHA ABDUL RAZAK V. PP [2019] 3 CLJ 612; [2020] 3 MLJ 530; di mana Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:- S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal "[14] Be that as it may, one of the important factors that we must bear in mind is that the sentence must always satisfy the principle of proportionality - that the severity of the penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The principle was articulated by the High Court of Australia in Hoare v. R [1989] 167 CLR 458 at 354 as follows: a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances. ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [20] Dalam kes ini, setelah mendengar hujahan pendakwaan dan rayuan mitigasi Tertuduh, Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh bersalah dan disabitkan dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh 1 tahun dari tarikh tangkapan (11.12.2023) dan dikenakan denda sebanyak RM 3000 gagal bayar 8 bulan penjara atas dasar: A) PENGAKUAN BERSALAH TERTUDUH [21] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pengakuan salah Tertuduh wajar diambil kira oleh Mahkamah kerana ianya telah menjimatkan masa dan kos semua pihak. Malah, pengakuan salah Tertuduh juga telah menjimatkan masa saksi-saksi dan kebimbangan saksi-saksi untuk hadir memberi keterangan di Mahkamah. Perkara ini telah diputuskan dalam kes SAU SOO KIM V. PP [1975] 1 LNS 158, seperti berikut:- S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal "Whether a person is a hardened criminal or not, I feel that a plea of guilty should be treated as a mitigating factor. It not only saves the country a great expense of a lengthy trial but also saves time and inconvenience of many, particularly the witnesses". [22] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. RAVINDRAN & ORS [1992] 1 LNS 47; [1993] 1 MLJ 45, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi telah merumuskan secara menyeluruh bahawa faktor-faktor yang perlu diambil kira berkenaan prinsip pengakuan bersalah tertuduh seperti berikut:- "(i) It is an accepted rule of practice that an accused person should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty. The rationale for this rule is that much public time and money will be spared if an accused admits his guilt, thus avoiding a prolonged and unnecessary trial. This rule however, is not a strict rule as the courts may, in exercise of their discretion, in exceptional cases, refuse to grant any discount. (ii) a plea of guilty will entitle the accused person to a discount of between one-quarter to one-third of the sentence. (iii) failure on the part of a judge in not granting credit or discounts may result in the judge not exercising his discretion in sentencing judicially. (iv) the credit or discount to be given in favour of the accused person is not on the maximum sentence imposed by law but rather on a sentence which would have been imposed on the accused if he had claimed trial and had been found guilty." S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [23] Walaupun diskaun atau credit bukan diberikan secara automatik kepada tertuduh setelah mengaku salah sepertimana yang diputuskan dalam kes PP V. RAVINDRAN (Supra), Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa pengakuan bersalah Tertuduh ini tidak boleh diabaikan sewenang- wenangnya tanpa alasan yang munasabah lebih-lebih lagi kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh dalam kes ini bukan merupakan kesalahan yang bersifat serius ataupun bersifat zalim (heinous). Prinsip ini telah diputuskan dalam kes TAN LAY CHEN V. PP [2000] 4 CLJ 492; [2001] 1 MLJ 135 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan seperti berikut:- "It must not be overlooked that the general rule is that an accused should be given a lesser punishment for pleading guilty. There can, as I have said, be a departure from this general rule. However, there must be good reasons for doing so. In that event the reasons for such departure must be kept in mind. If, therefore, a sentence is imposed without taking into consideration a guilty plea then the reasons for doing so must be explained by the sentencer. This is because an accused person expects the general rule to operate in his favour when he pleads guilty. The grounds of judgment must therefore show why the guilty plea cannot, on the facts of the case, be considered as a mitigating factor" [24] Mahkamah juga mempertimbangkan bahawa bagi membolehkan pengakuan bersalah menjadi faktor mitigasi yang kuat, ia hendaklah dibuat pada peluang terawal sepertimana yang telah diputuskan di dalam kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. KAMMOON WANNGA & ANOR [2009] 8 MLJ 430: “[19] It is, therefore, desirous that the plea of guilty be entered at an earliest reasonable opportunity before the witnesses give evidence S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal in the trial. Only then such a plea may be considered as a meaningful mitigating factor.” [25] Walaubagimanapun Mahkamah ini turut mengambil maklum bahawa seperti mana dijelaskan dalam kes PP v. Low Kok Wai [1988] 2 CLJ 105; [1988] 2 CLJ (Rep) 268; [1988] 3 MLJ 123 yang diputuskan oleh Mohamed Dzaiddin J (kemudian Ketua Hakim Negara) bahawa undang - undang turut menjelaskan bahawa pengakuan salah tidaklah begitu efektif apabila tidak terdapat apa-apa pembelaan yang berpihak kepada OKT. [26] Berbalik kepada kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah mendapati faktor pengakuan bersalah sebagai suatu faktor peringanan yang melayakkan peringanan hukuman terhadap Tertuduh. [27] Tertuduh telah mengaku salah pada peluang terawal dan sebelum perbicaraan bermula atau saksi-saksi dipanggil. Justeru itu, pengakuan salah Tertuduh sudah semestinya menjadi suatu faktor mitigasi yang penting. Apatah lagi tiada keterangan untuk menunjukkan bahawa Tertuduh merupakan seorang pesalah tegar atau “hardened criminal”. B) LATAR BELAKANG DAN PERLAKUAN TERTUDUH SELEPAS DITUDUH [28] Mahkamah turut mengambil kira faktor latar belakang Tertuduh. Di dalam mitigasinya peguambela yang bijaksana telah mengemukakan perkara-perkara berikut: a) Tertuduh menyatakan bahawa dia berumur 25 tahun. b) Tertuduh tiada pekerjaan S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal c) Tertuduh berstatus bujang. d) Tertuduh juga menjelaskan bahawa dia tiada rekod kesalahan lampau. [29] Mahkamah mengambil maklum bahawa faktor-faktor yang dihujahkan sepertimana diatas merupakan faktor mitigasi yang boleh dipertimbangkan sepertimana dijelaskan dalam Seksyen 176 (r) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [30] Faktor bahawa Tertuduh menyatakan bahawa beliau telah insaf dan berjanji untuk tidak mengulangi kesalahn ini lagi pada masa yang akan dating selepas beliau dipertuduhkan atas pertuduhan ini juga telah diambil kira oleh Mahkamah sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap Tertuduh. C) KEPENTINGAN AWAM [31] Sekalipun wujud faktor-faktor mitigasi seperti mana yang dihujahkan oleh Tertuduh namun menjadi tanggungjawab Mahkamah ini juga memperhalusi faktor- faktor pemberatan yang berkaitan dalam kes ini dalam mempertimbangkan kuantum hukuman yang berseusaian dengan kesalahan Tertuduh seperti mana dipertuduhkan. [32] Mahkamah juga sedia maklum mengenai prinsip kepentingan awam sebagai suatu faktor pemberatan yang sering kali ditekankan oleh pihak pendakwaan supaya hukuman yang bakal dijatuhkan dapat memberi pengajaran kepada tertuduh ("deterrent") dan orang awam supaya tidak mengulangi kesalahan yang sama pada masa akan datang. [33] Dalam pada itu, Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa dalam menjalankan proses perimbangan antara pelbagai kepentingan yang seharusnya diambil pertimbangan oleh Mahkamah ini dalam menjatuhkan suatu S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal hukuman, prinsip pertama dan utama yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman dalam kes jenayah ialah faktor kepentingan awam. [34] Ini adalah sepertimana yang dijelaskan dalam kes ABU BAKAR BIN ALIF V. R [1953] 1 MLJ 19 oleh Spenser Wilkinson J yang memetik penghakiman dalam kes REX V. BALL (supra): "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. … "It is for these reasons, and with these purposes in view, that before passing sentence the Court hears evidence of the antecedents and character of every convicted person. [35] Selain itu juga, dalam mempertimbangkan apa hukuman yang bersesuaian untuk dikenakan keatas Tertuduh, Mahkamah perlu mengambil kira tunjang penggubalan sesuatu peruntukan undang- S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal undang seperti dinyatakan dalam kes PP v LOO CHOON FATT (supra) oleh Hashim Yeop Sani J: It is common sense to say that behind these legislative exercises was the government's realisation albeit gradual, of the problemof 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. [36] Selain daripada itu juga, dalam mempertimbangkan apa hukuman yang bersesuaian untuk dikenakan keatas Tertuduh, Mahkamah perlu juga tidak boleh terlalu bersimpati dengan mitigasi seperti kesusahan keluarga, kerjaya tamat dan lain-lain: [37] Ini adalah sepertimana yang dijelaskan dalam kes PP v LOO CHOON FATT (supra) oleh Hashim Yeop Sani J: Presidents and Magistrates are often inclined quite naturally to be over-sympathetic to the accused. This is a normal psychological reaction to the situation in which the lonely accused is seen facing an array of witnesses with authority. The mitigation submitted by a convicted person will also normally bring up problems of family hardship and the other usual problems of living. In such a situation the courts might perhaps find it difficult to decide as to what sentence should be imposed so that the convicted person may not be further burdened with additional hardship. This in my view is a wrong approach. The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused. Lord Goddard L.C.J. in Rex v Grondkowski [1946] 1 All ER 560 561 offered some good advice when he said:– "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 means only the interests of the prisoners." [38] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan bersekali dengan denda yang dikenakan terhadap Tertuduh dalam kes ini merupakan satu bentuk hukuman yang mampu menjaga kepentingan awam. Hal ini kerana, Tertuduh dalam kes ini tidak terlepas begitu sahaja dengan suatu hukuman yang terlampau rendah yang tidak mencerminkan gravity kesalahan yang dilakukan / “a mere slap at the wrist”. [39] Bahkan Tertuduh Mahkamah berpandangan hukuman yang diberikan keatas Tertuduh ini atas sabitan bagi kesalahan yang dilakukannya adalah suatu hukuman yang berpatutan dengan gravity kesalahan itu disisi undang -undang iaitu dengan sengaja memeras ugut Pengadu secara mendatangkan ketakutan kepada pengadu apabila Tertuduh mengamuk untuk membakar kereta Pengadu sekiranya wang yang diperas ugut oleh Tertuduh daripada Pengadu tidak Pengadu berikan. [40] Tempoh pemenjaraan dan kuantum denda yang dikenakan keatas Tertuduh dinilai oleh Mahkamah ini sebagai suatu tempoh dan kuantum yang berpadanan bagi memberikan Tertuduh ruang dan peluang yang mencukupi untuk melakukan muhasabah diri agar Tertuduh sedar bahawa setiap tindakan yang dilakukannya mempunyai sebab dan akibat yang perlu ditanggung. Ini dilihat mampu untuk memberikan pengajaran S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal yang berguna keatas Tertuduh secara khusus dan masyarakat awam secara umumnya agar berfikir panjang sebelum terdetik dalam fikiran untuk melakukan apa jua perbuatan jenayah. [41] Ini selaras dengan prinsip dalam kes PP V SULAIMAN BIN AHMAD [1993] 1 MLJ 74 yang mana Abdul Malik Ishak J menyatakan: The learned editors of 10 Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed) at p 487 state as follows: The object of punishment is the prevention of crime, and every punishment is intended to have a double effect, namely, to prevent the person who has committed a crime from repeating the act or omission and to prevent other members of the community from committing similar crimes. [42] Berbalik kepada kes semasa, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa dengan menjatuhkan hukuman sedemikian rupa keatas Tertuduh maka dengan secara langsung hukuman tersebut dapat menyumbang kearah tercapainya tiga objektif bagi mengekang Tertuduh daripada terlibat dengan mana-mana kesalahan jenayah, iaitu secara: (1) dengan mengambil daripadanya keupayaan untuk melakukan jenayah (incapacitation); (2) dengan menghilangkan keinginan untuk melakukan jenayah (reformation); (3) dengan membuat dia takut untuk melakukan jenayah (intimidation) S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [43] Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa dimensi kepentingan awam dalam kes ini akan terjaga melalui hukuman pemenjaraan dan denda yang dikenakan keatas Tertuduh memandangkan hukuman tersebut dilihat bersesuaian dengan kepentingan agar episod jenayah yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh ini dijadikan iktibar kepada Tertuduh secara khusus dan masyarakat awam secara umumnya agar menginsafi kepentingan menjaga kesentosaan awam dengan menghindari daripada mendatangkan ketakutan kepada sesiapa pun dengan cara memeras ugut untuk mendapatkan wang . D) TAHAP KESENGAJAAN (DEGREE OF DELIBERATENESS) [47] Selain itu, dalam menghakimi kes ini, Mahkamah turut mengambil pendekatan untuk mempertimbangkan tahap kesengajaan Tertuduh sewaktu melakukan jenayah sebagai panduan dalam memutuskan hukuman yang bersesuaian ke atasnya, dimana pendekatan ini dapat dilihat aplikasinya dalam penghakiman Willan CJ dalam kes MOHAMED JUSOH ABDULLAH & ANOTHER V. PP [1947] 1 LNS 73; [1947] 1 MLJ 130 yang ada menyatakan: 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. [48] Dalam menjalankan perimbangan berkaitan tahap kesengajaan yang wujud dalam kes Tertuduh, Mahkamah ini telahpun mengambil maklum keperluan untuk mempertimbangkan kewujudan faktor-faktor yang memihak kepada Tertuduh, seperti ditegaskan oleh VT Singham J S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal di dalam kes PP V. AHMAD KHAIRUL FA’AIS MAT DAHLAN & ORS [2006] 6 CLJ 555: ... The offence committed by the accused is serious and the degree of seriousness must be reflected on the sentence imposed but at the same time, the court must also have regard to the proportion between the offence, the punishment provided by law, the mitigating plea, and any extenuating circumstances which might exist and to be in favour of the accused. [49] Setelah meneliti fakta kes dan melakukan proses perimbangan yang jitu, saya mendapati bahawa tahap kesengajaan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh dalam perlakuan jenayahnya jauh mengatasi faktor-faktor yang memihak kepada Tertuduh, lantas menatijahkan hukuman sepertimana yang diputuskan Mahkamah ini keatas Tertuduh tempoh hari. [50] Sekalipun Tertuduh menyatakan keinsafannya atas perlakuan jenayah yang telah dilakukan dan pada masa yang sama Tertuduh meberikan akujanjinya untuk tidak lagi mengulangi perbuatan yang sama, namun Mahkamah ini mendapati Tertuduh ini dengan sengaja mendatangkan ketakutan kepada ibunya sendiri dengan cara memeras ugut untuk mendapatkan wang. [51] Perkara ini jelas terlihat daripada tindakan Tertuduh yang pada Pada 10/12/2023 pada jam lebih kurang 6.00 petang, semasa Pengadu berada di rumah, dimana telah berlaku kekecohan di rumah tersebut apabila anak pengadu iaitu Tertuduh telah meminta duit sebanyak RM 100 daripada Pengadu dan apabila Pengadu tidak memberi wang tersebut dan enggan menurut kemahuan Tertuduh, Tertuduh telah S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mengamuk dan mengugut untuk membakar kereta Pengadu. [52] Kejadian tersebut telah menimbulkan rasa bimbang akan keselamatan Pengadu lantas menyebabkan Pengadu telah datang ke balai polis untuk mebuat laporan. [53] Fakta ini diakui sendiri oleh Tertuduh seasa pengakuan salah serta disokong oleh dokumen – dokumen pembuktian yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwaan sewaktu prosiding berjalan. [54] Sememangnya diakui Tertuduh mengaku salah sewaktu pertuduhan dibacakan kepadanya namun sekiranya disoroti fakta kes tersebut, amatlah jelas bahawa tindakan jenayah yang dilakukannya adalah disengajakan dimana tindak tanduk Tertuduh semasa kejadian jenayah berlaku menunjukkan keenggannya untuk patuh kepada undang undang dalam keadaan sedar dan seharusnya hukuman yang diberikan perlulah mencerminkan graviti perbuatan tersebut dan keperluan untuk memberi iktibar kepada Tertuduh dan masyarakat bahawa undang- undang mengambil serius tindakan jenayah sebegitu rupa. [55] Kesemua itu seperti yang diperi Hakim Ajaib Singh J, dalam kecualian yang disebut dalam kes CHAN SIT HOONG V. PP (supra), sepertimana berikut: A first offender, be he on a drug charge or some other criminal charge, should be dealt with by the imposition of a fine or by placing him under bond or probation, but he should be kept away from prison unless there are, in the public interest, strong reasons for ordering a term of imprisonment, such as the gravity of the offence itself and the manner in which it is committed, or as a deterrent when the prevalence of a particular type of offence S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal has truly reached a stage that a sentence of imprisonment alone may deter others from committing that type of offence. [56] Pertimbangan kepentingan awam dalam kes pemerasan adalah amat jelas seperti yang dapat dilihat dalam kes LING KAI HUAT & ANOR V. PP [1965] 1 MLJ 12 iaitu sebuah kes melibatkan jenayah peras ugut terhadap orang awam, Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan hukuman pemenjaraan yang berpatutan dengan graviti kesalahan pemerasan keatas orang awam adalah selama 12 bulan. [57] Berbalik kepada kes semasa, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang telahpun dijatuhkan keatas Tertuduh merupakan hukuman yang bersesuaian bagi kes ini memandangkan berbanding kes LING KAI HUAT & ANOR V. PP [1965] (supra) yang hanya melibatkan orang awam, jenayah peras ugut yang dilakukan keatas Pengadu memberikan kesan yang lebih besar kepada pengadu memandangkan kejadian dilakukan oleh Tertuduh yang mempunyai hubungan darah yang dekat dengan Pengad. [58] Kesan kejadian peras ugut oleh Tertuduh bukanlah bersifat abstrak sebaliknya telahpun meninggalkan kesan yang nyata dalam kehidupan Tertuduh. Perkara ini adalah amat jelas sekiranya Pernyataan Impak Mangsa/ Victim Impact Statement (Eksibit P6) yang dikemukakan oleh Pendakwaan diamati dengan cermat. [59] Pengadu menyatakan dalam Pernyataan Impak Mangsa/ Victim Impact Statement (Eksibit P6) tersebut bahawa akibat perbuatan pemerasan keatas dirinya oleh Tertuduh, Pengadu (a) Berasa bimbang akan keselamatan dirinya dan keluarga. S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (b) Berasa sangat takut dan trauma dengan kejadian yang menimpa dirinya (c) Pengadu berasa takut untuk pulang ke rumah (d) Pengadu berasa takut Tertuduh berdendam dengan Pengadu apabila Pengadu keluar penjara nanti. [60] Atas pertimbangan tersebut Mahkamah berpendapat sekalipun Tertuduh memohon supaya dia hanya dikenakan hukuman penjara, namun hukuman yang dipohon, pada hemat Mahkamah, adalah tidak berpatutan dengan graviti kesalahan yang Tertuduh lakukan keatas keluarga terdekatnya iaitu ibunya sendiri. [61] Mahkamah berpandangan, tempoh pemenjaraan yang telahpun diputuskan tersebut bersifat serampang dua mata kerana bukan sahaja bermanfaat kepada Tertuduh dalam menyediakan ruang masa yang bersesuaian untuk Tertuduh menginsafi kesalahan yang telahpun dilakukanya dan berinisiatif untuk memperbaiki diri melalui sistem pemenjaraan namun hukuman tersebut juga bermanfaat kepada Pengadu memandangkan tempoh pemenjaraan yang diputuskan membuka ruang dan peluang untuk Pengadu merawat luka dan trauma akibat insiden yang berlaku kepadanya sepanjang tempoh pengasingan Pengadu dengan Tertuduh. [62] Setidak-tidaknya, sepanjang tempoh tertuduh berada dalam jagaan penjara, keselamatan Pengadu adalah terjamin daripada berulangnya semula insiden pemerasan yang sama yang Pengadu sendiri risau akan berulang sekiranya Tertuduh tidak diasingkan daripada Pengadu untuk suatu tempoh yang lama. [63] Mitigasi Tertuduh telah saya ambil maklum dan pertimbangkan S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal sebaik-baiknya bersama-sama faktor-faktor yang telah saya huraikan sebelum ini. Walaubagaimanapun Tertuduh seharusnya menghayati kebijaksanaan dalam pepatah melayu lama; “sudah terhantuk barulah tengadah”. Tertuduh seharusnya sedar daripada awal SEBELUM dan bukanlah hanya SELEPAS kesalahan itu dilakukan bahawa kesusahan peribadi dan beban bakal menimpa Tertuduh sekiranya Tertuduh masih dengan sengaja melanggar undang-undang. [64] Dalam perkara ini saya merujuk keputusan Hakim Eusoffe Abdoolcader HMT di dalam kes PP V. TEH AH CHENG [1976] 1 LNS 116; [1976] 2 MLJ 186 yang menjelaskan: The respondent also puts forward in his plea in mitigation the fact that he is employed and supports an aged mother and step- brothers. He should of course have thought of this before committing the offences and not after; he is in fact pleading hardship arising from the consequences of his own acts and I would reiterate what I had occasion previously to observe in another case that an offender should not expect to excite or harness any sympathy on an ipse dixit by taking the stance of the impetuous youth who killed his parents with an axe and then pleaded in mitigation that he was an orphan. [65] Mengambil maklum perkembangan tersebut dan perkaitannya dengan kes yang dipertuduhkan keatas Tertuduh kali ini, Mahkamah mengambil pendekatan untuk mengangkat kepentingan awam melalui hukuman yang bersesuaian sepertimana yang dijatuhkan keatas Tertuduh. [66] Mahkamah mendasarkan pendapat ini kepada penghakiman Hakim S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Abdul Malik Ishak HMR di dalam kes SINNATHURAI SUBRAMANIAM V. PP [2011] 5 CLJ 56: The public interest element is a bare shell. It is shaped and coloured by the facts of the case, by the surrounding circumstances that compelled the Court to take into account before sentencing and, more importantly, by the mores of a particular society. [67] Mahkamah juga berpendapat bahawa dalam isu berkepentingan awam seperti soal menghormati ibu bapa yang membesarkan Tertuduh “bagai menatang minyak yang penuh”, Mahkamah mempunyai peranan untuk mengetuai pandangan umum untuk menunjukkan betapa masyarakat memandang hina perbuatan pemerasan terhadap ibu bapa sendiri seperti yang dilakukan Tertuduh terhadap Pengadu. [68] Atas dasar tersebut Mahkamah berpandangan adalah tidak mencukupi untuk Tertuduh hanya dihukum dengan pemenjaraan, sebaknya dihukum dengan gabungan hukuman pemenjaraan dan pembayaran denda untuk menunjukkan bahawa berbanding jenayah peras ugut terhadap orang kebanyakan seperti kebiasaannya, perlakuan jenayah peras ugut antara ahli keluarga sendiri apatah lagi antara anak dan ibubapa sehingga menyebabkan ketakutan yang jelas dan trauma emosi kepada mangsa seperti yang Pengadu deposkan dalam Pernyataan Impak Saksi / Victim Impact Assessment (Eksibit P6) hendaklah dihukum dengan hukuman yang berbeza sebagai perlambanagan betapa hinanya jenayah tersebut disisi mata masyarakat umum. [69] Ini dinukil dalam kes R V. SARGEANT [1974] 60 Cr App R yang saya jadikan sebagai dasar dalam menjatuhkan hukuman yang S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal bersesuaian dalam kes Tertuduh kali ini. Penghakiman itu ada menyebut: ... it is that society, through the courts, must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime, and the only way in which the courts can show this is by the sentences they pass. The courts do not have to reflect public opinion. On the other hand, courts must not disregard it. Perhaps the main duty of the court is to lead public opinion. KESIMPULAN [70] Berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa keputusan Mahkamah ini adalah adil, wajar dan munasabah bagi sabitan dan hukuman sepertimana yang telah diberikan kepada Tertuduh. Disediakan oleh, ………………………………… (RAIS IMRAN BIN HAMID) Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kota Bharu. Kelantan Bagi Pendakwaan: Timbalan Pendakwaraya Syazalia Binti Che Suhaimin (Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan) Bagi Pembelaan: Nik Nasrun Nazmi Nik Mohamad (Habibah Nik & Co.) S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N VhHWhi/bmkmOlko8754Kfg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. TAHUN 2023 ANTARA DAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PERTUDUHAN RINGKASAN FAKTA KES RAYUAN MITIGASI TERTUDUH HUJAHAN PEMBERATAN PENDAKWAAN KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH ALASAN-ALASAN BAGI HUKUMAN YANG DIBERIKAN KEATAS TERTUDUH PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG MENGENAI HUKUMAN ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH A) PENGAKUAN BERSALAH TERTUDUH B) LATAR BELAKANG DAN PERLAKUAN TERTUDUH SELEPAS DITUDUH C) KEPENTINGAN AWAM KESIMPULAN (RAIS IMRAN BIN HAMID) Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Kota Bharu. Kelantan 2024-01-10T09:02:13+0800

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24C-91-06/2023

PEMOHON KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD RESPONDEN EMBITION SDN BHD

Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-91-06/2023 (“OS 91”) is Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd’s (“KESB”) application to enforce the AD under section 28 CIPAA.

09/01/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=41a6d4be-c657-435f-9cca-cba12c8d2bf4&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAHKAMAH PEMBINAAN) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-80-05/2023 Dalam perkara Adjudikasi No.: AIAC/D/ADJ-4596-2023 antara Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd (Penuntut) dan Embition Sdn Bhd (Responden); Dan Dalam perkara Keputusan Adjudikasi bertarikh 15.05.2023 oleh Shamsul Bahrin Bin Abdul Manaf’ Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 15 Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan 2012 (“CIPAA”); Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 16 Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan 2012 (“CIPAA”); Dan 09/01/2024 16:47:17 WA-24C-91-06/2023 Kand. 21 S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dalam perkara Aturan 69A dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan dalam bidang kuasa Mahkamah yang Mulia ini ANTARA EMBITION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1082956-X) …PEMOHON DAN KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 756027-X) …RESPONDEN Di Dengar Bersama Dengan DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAHKAMAH PEMBINAAN) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-81-05/2023 Dalam perkara Adjudikasi No.: AIAC/D/ADJ-4596-2023 antara Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd (Penuntut) dan Embition Sdn Bhd (Responden); S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Dan Dalam perkara Keputusan Adjudikasi bertarikh 15.05.2023 oleh Shamsul Bahrin Bin Abdul Manaf; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 15 Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan 2012 (“CIPAA”); Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 69A dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan dalam bidang kuasa Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini ANTARA EMBITION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1082956-X) …PEMOHON DAN KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 756027-X) …DEFENDAN Di Dengar Bersama Dengan S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAHKAMAH PEMBINAAN) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-91-06/2023 Dalam perkara Adjudikasi antara Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd (Pihak Menuntut) dan Embition Sdn Bhd (Pihak Responden) Dan Dalam perkara Adjudikasi di hadapan Shamsul Bahrin Bin Abdul Manaf; Dan Dalam perkara Keputusan Adjudikasi bertarikh 15-5-2023; Dan Dalam perkara seksyen 28 Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan, 2012 Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 7, Aturan 28, dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah, 2012 dan S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Aturan 69A Kaedah 5 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah (Pindaan) 2018 ANTARA KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1082956-X) …PLAINTIFF DAN EMBITION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1082956-X) …DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) [1] Originating Summons No. WA-24C-80-05/2023 (“OS 80”) is an Application for a Stay of the Adjudication Decision dated 15.3.2023 (“AD”) by Embition Sdn Bhd (“Embition”) pursuant to section 16 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and pending the disposal of the Arbitration proceedings between the parties. [2] Originating Summons No. WA-24C-81-05/2023 (“OS 81”) is Embition’s application to set aside the AD under section 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”), whilst Originating Summons No. WA-24C-91-06/2023 (“OS 91”) is Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd’s (“KESB”) application to enforce the AD under section 28 CIPAA. S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Brief Background Facts [3] By a Letter of Award dated 13.06.20185, Embition appointed KESB to carry out infrastructure works for a project known as Construction and Completion of Infrastructure Works for Cadangan Pembangunan (Guarded Community) Perumahan Rumah Sesebuah diatas Lot 424, Mukim Ulu Kelang, Selangor Darul Ehsan untuk Tetuan Twin Ridge Sdn. Bhd. (“the Works”) for a contract sum of RM22,000,000.00. [4] This Letter of Award was issued by Messrs. KSKA Arkitek Sdn Bhd on behalf of Embition. The said Messrs. KSKA Arkitek Sdn Bhd is also designated as the Architect (“the Architect”) for the Works. [5] Apart from the terms in the Letter of Award, the parties agreed that the contract would be in the PAM Contract (Without Quantities) form 6 (collectively referred to as “the Contract”). [6] KESB claimed that KESB had carried out the Works under the Contract and thus states that it is entitled to issue Progress Claim No. 20 for the Works said to be done totalling RM1,347,044.94 to the Architect on 19.09.2022 and the Architect has issued the Interim Progress Certificate No. 20 (“IPC 20”) on 20.09.2022 for the said sum. [7] The issue that arose is in relation to the payment for IPC 20 which was allegedly not made by Embition on or before 20.10.2022. [8] KESB subsequently served a Payment Claim dated 27.12.2022 on Embition for a sum of RM1,347,044.94 and Embition served the S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Payment Response dated 06.01.2023 on KESB disputing the amount of RM1,279,425.69. Court’s Analysis & Findings [9] Under OS 81, Embition had in essence submitted that: (i) the Adjudicator had failed to call for an oral hearing. (ii) Embition had not been given the opportunity to submit on Progress Certificate no. 20 certified by the Architect. (iii) KESB used the CIPAA process to stave off the Arbitration that was initiated by Embition against KESB. Oral Hearing [10] On the issue of the oral hearing which learned counsel for Embition had submitted that the Adjudicator did not address; I have found that the Adjudicator did address the same at paragraph 28 of the AD where he found upon perusal of the cause papers and documents before him that there was no necessity to hold an oral hearing. [11] I hold that the decision of the Adjudicator on this issue should not and cannot be questioned once he has given his reasons for doing so after the Adjudicator had considered the relevant documents and evidence before him. It is completely within the Adjudicator’s discretion to determine the conduct of the Adjudication including whether he should hold an oral hearing. S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [12] The Court will not interfere once the Adjudicator has given his reasons for allowing or disallowing the oral hearing, see Mamoth Empire Construction Sdn Bhd v Stam Engineering Sdn Bhd & anor case [2019] 3 CLJ 718 and Martego Sdn Bhd v Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and Anor appeal [2018] 4 MLJ 496. [13] For the record, I have considered the cases relied on by learned counsel for Embition to support its contention that natural justice has been denied to them due to the lack of a fair hearing. [14] Although this Court totally agrees with and supports the legal principles therein, I find that the respective Adjudication Decisions in the said cases were set aside on facts which are quite different and which can thus be distinguished with the case before me. [15] Firstly, on Guangxi Dev & Cap Sdn Bhd v Sycal Bhd & Anor Appeal [2019] 6 MLRA case referred by counsel for Embition, the Adjudication Decision therein was amongst others allowed to be set aside not because no oral hearing was allowed but due to a preliminary report submitted by the Respondent therein which the Adjudicator failed to consider; whilst in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v NS Bluescope Lysaght Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2015] MLRHU 1018, the Adjudication Decision therein was set aside due to inter alia a unilateral communication between the Adjudicator and one of the parties, for which the Court held that there was occasioned a breach of natural justice. S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [16] Accordingly, I will not, with respect, be able to rely on the said cases to support learned counsel for Embition’s contention that natural justice has been denied to them due to the lack of a fair hearing. Progress Certificate No 20 & Failure to Call Architect & The Opportunity to Submit on The Same [17] In relation to the issue of Progress Certificate No. 20 certified by the Architect, I find that the Adjudicator had addressed and considered this in the AD and after going through the documents before him, the Adjudicator had inter alia found that: 17.1 Progress Claim no. 20 was submitted to the Architect and he had thereafter issued Progress Certificate no. 20 certifying the same. 17.2 Embition did not dispute the correctness of Progress Certificate no. 20. 17.3 referred to clauses 15.1 and 15.4 of the Letter of Award 17.4 there was compliance with the abovementioned clauses by KESB. 17.5 the Architect had acted on behalf of Embition and it was not open to Embition to distance itself from the certification by the Architect. 17.6 Embition cannot use the excuse that Progress Certificate no. 20 was wrongly certified to avoid paying KESB. [18] In this respect, I have noted that learned counsel for Embition has contended amongst others that the Adjudicator should have called the Architect to explain and referred to several case laws which show S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 that the Architect when certifying is independent and cannot be imputed on parties. It was thus submitted that the Adjudicator had erroneously made a finding of fact/law on who the Architect is acting for, which is contrary to clause 11.1.c of the LA. [19] With respect, I agree with learned counsel for KESB that Embition ought to have raised all its defences with regards the said Progress Certificate No. 20 and/or the issues against the Architect for issuing the same and that Embition’s failure to do so was on its own peril and cannot be faulted on the Adjudicator. [20] Be that as it may, after considering Embition’s contentions and after going through the AD as mentioned above, I hold that the Adjudicator had identified, considered and analyzed the relevant documents and had asked himself the rights questions on this issue including in particular, but not limited to, Embition’s allegations that all variation works are subject to Embition’s approval and his decision thereafter that it was “..not open for the Respondent to distant itself from the certification by the Architect….”. [21] It was only after such analysis that the Adjudicator had come to his decision on the same. Whether his answer is one which is right or wrong is something which this Court will not interfere as that would be going into the merits of the matter which, according to settled law, this Court cannot do in an application to set aside the AD under section 15 CIPAA. Stay Application Under OS 80 S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [22] I have consequently considered OS 80, which is the Stay Application pursuant to section 16 of the Arbitration Act 2005 on the ground of that the AD should be stayed pending the disposal of the Arbitration proceedings. [23] It is trite that the fact there is an arbitration proceeding between the parties does not automatically mean that there is to be a stay of the AD, and that both the Adjudication proceedings and the Arbitration proceedings can exists independently. I quote and rely on the Federal Court’s decision in Martego Sdn Bhd v Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2019] MLJU 742 where the Court had stated: “[76] …We are fully in agreement with the learned High Court Judge that there is nothing to stop CIPAA 2012 from applying to the case at hand and there is no need to see adjudication and arbitration to be mutually exclusive to each other. …..” and quoting and adopting what the learned High Court Judge in the matter below had stated on the matter which was as follows: “… After the introduction of Adjudication, both Arbitration and Litigation will still continue except that now there is an additional dispute resolution mechanism of temporary finality that can be embarked upon before or concurrently with Arbitration or Litigation as the case may be. Thus, one need not have to choose in an “either or” approach between Adjudication and Arbitration but one can proceed in a “both and” approach in resolving a dispute on an architect’s claim against his client for his professional fees. Adjudication under CIPAA was never designed to be in conflict with Arbitration and Litigation and so its process may be activated at any time where there is a valid payment claim under a construction S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 contract. Premised on that proper perspective, the question of which would prevail over the other does not arise at all.” (emphasis added)” [24] I further find that the test of exceptional circumstances to justify a stay application has not been proven to the satisfaction of this Court. Justice Mary Lim (now FCJ) had in Subang Skypark Sdn Bhd v Arcradius Sdn Bhd [2015] 11 MLJ 818 that a stay should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and wherein Her Ladyship stated as follows: - “[32] It is my further view that stay should only be granted in exceptional circumstances; and such circumstances must necessarily refer to the financial status of the other party. The merits of the case before the arbitration or the court; or even the chances of success in setting aside the adjudication decision are not relevant considerations. The grant of any stay must always weigh in the primary object of the CIPAA 2012; that it is to ensure a speedy resolution of a payment dispute; that it is to inject much needed cashflow into the contractual arrangements between parties that saw progressive payments of claims as the recognised and accepted way of doing business in construction contracts. It would be futile to encourage parties to resort to adjudication and then deprive a successful claimant of its claim by staying the access to the cash simply because there is another proceeding of the nature described in sub-s 16(1) which is pending. The whole concept of temporary finality would be lost and the object of the Act defeated if such was the consideration.” [25] Thus, based on the above tests and the same grounds I have afore mentioned for this Court in dismissing the Setting Aside of the AD herein, I dismiss the said Stay Application under OS 80. S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Enforcement of AD [26] Since this Court has dismissed the application for Setting Aside of the AD, and there is to date no payment of the same from Embition to KESB’ I hold that there is nothing to prevent the AD from being enforced pursuant to section 28 of CIPAA. Decision [27] Wherefore I hereby dismiss with costs OS 81 and OS 80 with costs. I will in the circumstances allow and grant Order In Terms for prayers A, B (i) (ii) and (iii) and C in enclosure 1 of OS 91. Dated: 20th day of October 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: K. Selva Kumaran [Messrs Rose Hussin] COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: Dinesh Nandrajog [Messrs Nandrajog] S/N vtSmQVfGX0OcysuhLI0r9A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AA-42CY-3-06/2022

PERAYU Pendakwa Raya RESPONDEN ARUNAKIRINATHAN A/L THILLAINATHAN

RAYUAN JENAYAH: Rayuan Silang- Rayuan OKT terhadap sabitan dan hukuman – Rayuan Pendakwaan terhadap hukuman - Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 dan di bawah seksyen 504 Kanun Keseksaan – Sama ada HMS gagal memberi pertimbangan hak kebebasan bersuara OKT di bawah Perkara 10(1)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan- Sama ada HMS gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa video OKT diedarkan oleh orang lain dan bukan OKT - Sama ada HMS gagal mempertimbangkan perkataan “Sultan dimaksudkan bukanlah membawa maksud sultan-sultan di Malaysia - Apabila memutuskan pembelaan OKT bersifat penafian semata-mata – Isu sama ada pihak pendakwaan mengenakan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 dan seksyen 504 KK yang merupakan pertuduhan yang bertindih – Sama ada hukuman yang dikenakan ke atas OKT adalah berpatutan dan ternyata tidak memadai (masnifestly inadequate).

09/01/2024

YA Dato' Abdul Wahab Bin Mohamed

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e225a1e6-4b9e-4117-b086-df4b70ec79af&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - AP Arunakiri Nathan.docx 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI IPOH DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. AA-42CY-2-06/2022 ARUNAKIRINATHAN A/L THILLAINATHAN (NO. KP: 840919-14-5347) …PERAYU LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA …RESPONDEN RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. AA-42CY-3-06/2022 PENDAKWA RAYA …PERAYU LAWAN ARUNAKIRI NATHAN A/L THILLAI NATHAN (NO. KP: 840919-14-5357) …RESPONDEN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN 09/01/2024 09:36:40 AA-42CY-3-06/2022 Kand. 28 S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 PENGENALAN [1] Arunakiri Nathan a/l Thilai Nathan yang merupakan Perayu (selepas ini disebut sebagai “OKT”) bagi kes Rayuan Jenayah No. 42CY-2-06/2022 telah disabitkan dengan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 (selepas ini dikenali sebagai Akta 588) dan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 504 Kanun Keseksaan (selepas ini dikenali sebagai “KK”). Manakala Pendakwa Raya (selepas ini disebut sebagai pihak pendakwaan) merupakan Responden dalam rayuan ini. [2] Pihak pendakwaan yang merupakan Perayu bagi kes Rayuan Jenayah No. 42CY-3-06/2022 telah merayu ke atas hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan ke atas OKT seperti bagi tuduhan pertama di bawah seksyen 233(1) Akta 586, denda RM10,000.00 jika gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara dan bagi tuduhan kedua dibawah seksyen 504 KK, hukuman penjara 5 hari dan denda RM5,000.00 jika gagal bayar denda 3 bulan penjara. FAKTA RINGKAS [3] Pada 19.2.2019, jam lebih kurang 9.00 pagi, Abdul Hadi Ahmad bin Khairol Nizam (SP1) telah melayari Facebook Arunakiri Nathan iaitu OKT dan telah melihat satu video yang menunjukkan OKT membuat kenyataan berbaur penghinaan terhadap orang Melayu dan Sultan berbunyi seperti berikut: “Zakir Naik can actually con all Malays... Malaysians. Zakir Naik can cheat all the Sultans.You know why? Don’t blame Sultan or don’t blame the Malays. Malay Muslim because there is a rule of law where they cannot learn more. They S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 canot have higher IQ. They must follow UMNO or PAS. So if you take the Sultans right, its billions going to them. Aaa...its on money, not knowledge. So in direct language, in being very very upfront towards you. Do you think that a Sultan want to see a real human? Or hear from a real human? Maybe a Sultan would want a 1 million,2 millions,3 millions, 4 millions, 5 millions. Do you think in Malaysia a Sultan wants to help Indian Chinese Malays wholeheartedly? That you must ask the Sultan wants to help la because a Sultan if they can be Malaysians and they can help all races. Perlis would never have the kidnappings of in Pastors.In Kelantan,you never have so many hundreds of bodies dying over there being aaa.. I mean being thrown la near the border. In Pahang, you wouldn’t have pollution that is very very bad but, in every world, or in every country, you will have people lead about money and not humanity.” [4] Terasa sakit hati dan marah dengan video ini, SP1 telah membuat satu laporan polis sebagaimana Eksibit P2. Selanjutnya, berikutan dari laporan yang dibuat oleh SP1, OKT telah ditangkap oleh ASP Chay Hu Yeen (SP2) serta merampas barang kes seperti P7c dan P7d serta laporan tangkapan telah dibuat sebagaimana eksibit P6. [5] Dalam siasatan oleh pegawai penyiasat iaitu SP7 ke atas OKT, satu laporan profiling iaitu eksibit P13 telah diterima daripada SP3 yang mengesahkan bahawa OKT adalah pengendali bagi akaun “Arunakiri Nathan II” tersebut. S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [6] Oleh itu, OKT telah dituduh di Mahkamah sebagaimana pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 233 (1)(a) Akta 588 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 233(3) seperti berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 15 Februari 2016 jam lebih kurang 11.52 malam melalui perkhidmatan aplikasi Facebook dengan menggunakan laman profil “Arunakirinathan II di pautan Facebook “Fahmi Reza” di pautan https://www.facebook.com/arunakiri.nathanii/videos/1213 00272274558/. secara sedar memuatnaik satu video kenyataan-kenyataan yang jelik sifatnya iaitu “Zakir Naik can actually con all Malays... Malaysians. Zakir Naik can cheat all the Sultans.You know why? Don’t blame Sultan or don’t blame the Malays. Malay Muslim because there is a rule of law where they cannot learn more. They canot have higher IQ. They must follow UMNO or PAS. So if you take the Sultans right, its billions going to them. Aaa...its on money, not knowledge. So in direct language, in being very very upfront towards you. Do you think that a Sultan want to see a real human? Or hear from a real human? Maybe a Sultan would want a 1 million,2 millions,3 millions, 4 millions, 5 millions. Do you think in Malaysia a Sultan wants to help Indian Chinese Malays wholeheartedly? That you must ask the Sultan wants to help la because a Sultan if they can be Malaysians and they can help all races.Perlis would never have the kidnappings of in Pastors.In Kelantan,you never have so many hundreds of bodies dying over there being aaa.. I mean being thrown la near the border. In Pahang, you wouldn’t have pollution that is S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 very very bad but, in every world, or in every country, you will have people lead about money and not humanity.” dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain, yang telah dilihat pada 19 Februari 2019 jam lebih kurang 9 pagi di No.9, Lapangan Perdana 30, Panorama Lapangan Perdana, Kampung Rapat, Ipoh, di dalam Daerah Kinta, di dalam Negeri Perak. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi Dan Multimedia 1998 (Akta 588) dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 233(3) Akta yang sama. [7] Manakala pertuduhan kedua di bawah seksyen 504 KK adalah seperti berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 15 Februari 2016 jam lebih kurang 11.52 malam melalui perkhidmatan aplikasi Facebook dengan menggunakan laman profil “Arunakiri Nathan II” di pautan https://www.facebook.com/arunakiri.nathanii/videos/1213 00272274558/. Telah dengan sengaja mengaibkan orang Melayu dan agama Islam dengan membuat kenyataan seperti berikut iaitu “Zakir Naik can actually con all Malays... Malaysians. Zakir Naik can cheat all the Sultans.You know why? Don’t blame Sultan or don’t blame the Malays. Malay Muslim because there is a rule of law where they cannot learn more. They canot have higher IQ. They must follows UMNO or PAS. So if you take the Sultans right, its billions going to them. Aaa..its on money ,not knowledge.So in direct language, in being very very S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 upfront towards you.Do you think that a Sultan want to see a real human? Or hear from a real human? Maybe a Sultan would want a 1 million,2 millions,3 millions, 4 millions, 5 millions. Do you think in Malaysia a Sultan wants to help Indian Chinese Malays wholeheartedly? That you must ask the Sultan wants to help la because a Sultan if they can be Malaysians and they can help all races.Perlis would never have the kidnappings of in Pastors.In Kelantan,you never have so many hundreds of bodies dying over there being aaa.. I mean being thrown la near the border. In Pahang , you wouldn’t have pollution that is very very bad but in every world or in every country ,you will have people lead about money and not humanity.”yang telah dilihat oleh Abdul Hadi Akmal Bin Khairol Nizam (No.KP 900822- 05- 5611) di No.9, Lapangan Perdana 30, Panorama Lapangan Perdana,Kampung Rapat,Ipoh, di dalam Daerah Kinta ,di dalam Negeri Perak dan dengan jalan demikian itu ,mendatangkan bangkitan marah kepada Abdul Hadi Akmal Bin Khairol Nizam (No.KP 900822-05- 5611) dengan mengetahui mungkin bahawa bangkitan marah itu akan menyebabkan memecahkan keamanan awam.Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 504 Kanun Keseksaan.” S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 ISU-ISU YANG DIBANGKITKAN OLEH OKT DI DALAM PETISYEN RAYUAN [8] Pihak OKT berpendirian bahawa Puan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen (selepas ini disebut HMS) yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf apabila memutuskan OKT didapati bersalah dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan- pertuduhan terhadap OKT. Kekhilafan HMS dapat dirumuskan seperti di antara lain seperti berikut: a) Gagal memberi pertimbangan hak kebebasan bersuara OKT di bawah Perkara 10(1)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; b) Gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa video OKT diedarkan oleh orang lain dan bukan OKT; c) Gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa video yang dikatakan telah dimuatnaik di aplikasi Facebook OKT yang berkunci tidak dikongsi kepada sesiapa dan live video yang dibuat di akaun berkunci ianya bukan dibuat untuk membangkitkan marah sehingga memecahkan keamanan dan bukan satu perbincangan yang berbahaya; d) Gagal mempertimbangkan perkataan “Sultan dimaksudkan bukanlah membawa maksud sultan-sultan di Malaysia; e) Apabila memutuskan pembelaan OKT bersifat penafian semata-mata; dan S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 f) Pihak pendakwaan mengenakan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 dan seksyen 504 KK yang merupakan pertuduhan yang bertindih. DAPATAN DAN KEPUTUSAN [9] Prinsip asas dalam memberi pertimbangan ke atas sesuatu rayuan adalah Mahkamah yang mendengar dan memberi pertimbangan ke atas sesuatu rayuan perlu berhati-hati dan sukar untuk membuat perubahan ke atas keputusan berdasarkan fakta yang dibuat oleh mahkamah yang menjalankan perbicaraan penuh. Mahkamah di peringkat rayuan juga tidak sepatutnya mengganggu dapatan fakta Hakim bicara melainkan wujudnya kesilapan yang ketara telah dilakukan oleh Hakim bicara. Prinsip ini telah ditekankan dalam kes Ping Hun Sun v. Dato' Yip Yee Foo [2013] 1 LNS 320, apabila Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan: “When the finding of the trial judge is factual, however, the fact finder's decision cannot be disturbed on appeal unless the decision of the fact finder is plainly wrong (see China Airline Ltd v. Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [1996] 3 CLJ 163); Zaharah bt A. Kadir v. Ramuna Bauxite Pte Ltd & Anor [2011] 1 LNS 1015, Kyros International Sdn Bhd. v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2013] 1 LNS 1). The findings of fact of the trial judge can only be reversed when it is positively demonstrated to the appellate court that - S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (a) by reason of some non-direction or mix-direction or otherwise the judge erred in accepting the evidence which he or she did accept; or (b) in assessing and evaluating the evidence the judge has taken into account some mater which he or she ought not to have taken into account, or failed to take into account some matter which he or she ought to have taken into account; or (c) it unmistakenly appears from the evidence itself, or from the unsatisfactory reasons given by the judge for accepting it, that he or she cannot have taken proper advantage of his or her having seen and heard the witnesses' or (d) in so far aside judge has relied on manner and demeanour, there are other circumstances which indicate that the evidence of the witnesses which he or she accepted is not credible, as for instance, where those witnesses have on some collateral matter deliberately given an untrue answer.” [10] Dalam kes Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP & Another Appeal [2004] 3 CLJ 737, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan seperti berikut : "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 is his finding of facts. It should go S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 further and examine the evidence and the circumstances under which that finding is 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 on a question of fact or on a question of mixed fact and law would be meaningless.” [11] Dalam situasi tertentu, Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan boleh campur tangan atau mengubah keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh Mahkamah yang menjalankan perbicaraan sekiranya keputusan yang dibuat itu adalah berdasarkan anggapan atau andaian yang mana Tan Chiaw Thong J telah memberikan panduan yang boleh diikuti dalam kes PP v Abang Abdul Rahman [1981] 1 LNS 169 seperti berikut: “The learned trial magistrate in his judgment gave no indication that he disbelieved PW5 and PW6, and he made no finding of fact on the material disputed matters referred to above. Certainly, he compared the respective testimonies off PW5 and PW6, and the respondent and, because “PW6 under cross-examination admitted that anything in English is dealt with by his employees” he found that “ This court can see no way in which PW5 can accept the cheque as settlement of the accused’s debt”. The learned trial magistrate did not say in his judgment that he disbelieved PW5 and PW6. As seems to be the case the basis of this finding was the drawing of inferences from the S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 relevant evidence in the trial. However, for the reasons already given, this basis is not legally sound, and an appellate court can certainly interfere with this finding based on inferences. Even of matters of fact, an appellate court can interfere in appropriate cases, but such cases are not common and an appellate court, before reaching its conclusion upon matters of fact, should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the view a of the trial judge as to be credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.” [12] Berasaskan kepada prinsip undang-undang yang telah dinyatakan dalam kes-kes yang dirujuk di atas, maka adalah penting untuk Mahkamah memberi pertimbangan semula ke atas alasan-alasan keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh HMS ke atas isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh OKT dalam rayuan ini. Sekiranya wujud kesilapan ketara yang telah dilakukan oleh HMS sehingga boleh menyebabkan suatu ketidakadilan yang serius berlaku dalam keputusan tersebut, maka Mahkamah ini adalah berkewajipan untuk mengganggu keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh HMS itu. S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [13] Mahkamah ini juga akan membuat analisa ke atas keterangan yang telah dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan pihak OKT dalam memberi pertimbangan ke atas isu-isu yang dihujahkan oleh pihak OKT. Gagal memberi pertimbangan hak kebebasan bersuara OKT di bawah Perkara 10(1)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan; [14] Peguamcara terpelajar OKT berhujah bahawa tindakan OKT adalah di bawah hak Perlembagaan OKT untuk kebebasan bersuara dan menyuara pendapat beliau semata-mata yang menjadi asas demokrasi. Sekiranya OKT didapati bersalah dan disabitkan, ianya akan memberi kesan yang menghalang rakyat Malaysia untuk menyuarakan pendapat tanpa rasa gentar atau takut kepada tindakan sivil dan jenayah. [15] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada Perkara 10(2)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang berbunyi seperti berikut; “(2) Parlimen boleh melalui undang-undang mengenakan- (a) ke atas hak yang diberikan oleh perenggan (a) Fasal (1), apa-apa sekatan yang didapatinya perlu atau suai manfaat demi kepentingan keselamatan Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya, hubungan baik dengan negara-negara lain, ketenteraman awam atau prinsip moral dan sekatan-sekatan yang bertujuan untuk melindungi keistimewaan Parlimen atau mana-mana Dewan Undangan atau untuk membuat peruntukan menentang S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 penghinaan mahkamah, fitnah, kesalahan; atau pengapian apa-apa kesalahan.” [16] Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa OKT telah melakukan kesalahan mengeluarkan pernyataan yang jelik di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 dan menyakitkan hati sehingga mendatangkan marah di bawah seksyen 504 KK yang mana hak kebebasan bersuara adalah terbatas dan tertakluk kepada undang-undang yang berkuatkuasa di negara ini. [17] Seksyen seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “233 Improper use of network facilities or network service, etc. (1) A person who- (a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly- (i) makes, creates or solicits; and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person; or (b) initiates a communication using any applications service, whether continuously, repeatedly or otherwise, during which communication may or may S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 not ensue, with or without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at any number or electronic address, commits an offence. (2) A person who knowingly- (a) by means of a network service or applications service provides any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person; or (b) permits a network service or applications service under the person's control to be used for an activity described in paragraph (a), commits an offence. (3) A person who commits an offence under this section shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction. [18] Di bawah seksyen 233(1) Akta 588 terdapat 3 elemen pertuduhan di dalam kes ini yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan seperti berikut: S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 i. OKT telah menggunakan aplikasi laman profil “Facebook” miliknya untuk memulakan suatu komunikasi dengan menggunakan perkhidmatan aplikasi iaitu internet; ii. OKT secara sedar membuat dan memulakan penghantaran komen yang jelik sifatnya; dan iii. Dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain. [19] Seksyen 504 Kanun Keseksaan (KK) memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “504 Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.” [20] Manakala bagi seksyen 504 KK terdapat 3 elemen pertuduhan di bawah seksyen ini yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan seperti berikut: i. OKT telah memulakan penghantaran komen tersebut dengan sengaja mengaibkan; S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 ii. OKT telah memulakan penghantaran komen tersebut bagi mendatangkan kebangkitan marah kepada mana-mana orang; dan iii. OKT telah memulakan penghantaran komen tersebut dengan maksud memecahkan keamanan awam. [21] Sehubungan dengan peruntukkan di atas maka kebebasan bersuara ada had dan batasnya sebagaimana yang diperuntukan oleh Perlembagaan itu sendiri. Maka, adalah menjadi tugas dan tanggungjawab pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan elemen-elemen yang telah ditetapkan dalam seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 dan seksyen 504 KK dengan mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan dan dokumen- dokumen yang berkaitan yang akan dibincangkan selepas ini. Gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa video OKT diedarkan oleh orang lain dan bukan OKT; Gagal mempertimbangkan bahawa video yang dikatakan telah dimuatnaik di aplikasi Facebook OKT yang berkunci tidak dikongsi kepada sesiapa dan live video yang dibuat di akaun berkunci ianya bukan dibuat untuk membangkitkan marah sehingga memecahkan keamanan dan bukan satu perbincangan yang berbahaya; dan Gagal mempertimbangkan perkataan “Sultan dimaksudkan bukanlah membawa maksud sultan-sultan di Malaysia; [22] Peguam OKT berhujah bahawa HMS gagal memutuskan bahawa video yang diambil adalah daripada profil OKT sendiri maka jelas video S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 tersebut yang dibuat di akaun berkunci tidak pernah disebarkan untuk tontonan awam dengan niat untuk menyebabkan kacau ganggu kepada keharmonian dan keamanan awam. “Live video” dalam pertuduhan- pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah satu perbincangan dan bukan untuk mengaibkan mana-mana pihak dan tidak berbahaya. [23] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti Alasan Penghakiman HMS yang telah membuat dapatan berasaskan kepada keterangan-keterangan yang di kemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan termasuk dokumen-dokumen yang telah diekshibitkan dan dikaitkan dengan elemen-elemen pertuduhan. [24] Mahkamah ini dapati bahawa elemen pertama yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan adalah OKT telah menggunakan aplikasi laman profil “Facebook” miliknya untuk memulakan suatu komunikasi dengan menggunakan perkhidmatan aplikasi iaitu internet [25] Berdasarkan keterangan saksi SP1, pada 19.2.2019 jam lebih kurang 9 pagi, SP1 telah dapat melayari video berdurasi 44 minit 12 saat di profil “Facebook” Arunakiri Nathan II. Ekoran daripada itu, hasil risikan oleh SP3 didapati pemilik akaun dan pengendali akaun tersebut adalah Arunakiri Nathan iaitu OKT sendiri. [26] Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 114A Akta Keterangan 1950 di mana anggapan statutori terpakai terhadap OKT berdasarkan kepada keterangan dan siasatan di atas. Seksyen 114A Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Presumption of fact in publication 114A (1) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved. (2) A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved. (3) Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved. (4) For the purpose of this section— (a) “network service” and “network service provider” have the meaning assigned to them in section 6 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 [Act 588]; and S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 (b) “publication” means a statement or a representation, whether in written, printed, pictorial, film, graphical, acoustic or other form displayed on the screen of a computer. [27] Sehubungan dengan itu, berdasarkan kepada seksyen 114A(1) Akta Keterangan ini, OKT boleh dianggap telah membuat dan memulakan komunikasi secara “live” dan seterusnya memuatnaikkan di laman akaun “Facebook” profil Arunakiri Nathan II kerana keterangan-keterangan menunjukkan bahawa akaun “Facebook” profil Arunakiri Nathan II di mana terdapatnya live tersebut telah dimuatnaikkan adalah milik OKT. Di samping itu, OKT telah dikenalpasti oleh SP1 sebagai orang di dalam “live” tersebut. [28] Elemen Kedua yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan ialah OKT secara sedar membuat dan memulakan penghantaran komen yang jelik sifatnya. Ini adalah berdasarkan kepada keterangan SP1 yang mana adalah jelas bahawa SP1 telah melihat dan mendengar OKT secara live telah mengeluarkan kenyataan-kenyataan berikut: “Zakir Naik can actually con all Malays... Malaysians. Zakir Naik can cheat all the Sultans.You know why? Don’t blame Sultan or don’t blame the Malays. Malay Muslim because there is a rule of law where they cannot learn more. They canot have higher IQ. They must follows UMNO or PAS. So if you take the Sultans right, its billions going to them. Aaa..its on money ,not knowledge. So in direct language, in being very very upfront towards you. Do you think that a Sultan want to see a real human? Or hear from a real S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 human? Maybe a Sultan would want a 1 million, 2 millions, 3 millions, 4 millions, 5 millions. Do you think in Malaysia a Sultan wants to help Indian Chinese Malays wholeheartedly? That you must ask the Sultan wants to help la because a Sultan if they can be Malaysians and they can help all races. Perlis would never have the kidnappings of in Pastors. In Kelantan, you never have so many hundreds of bodies dying over there being aaa.. I mean being thrown la near the border. In Pahang, you wouldn’t have pollution that is very very bad but, in every world, or in every country, you will have people lead about money and not humanity. [29] Sekiranya diamati secara mendalam dan teliti, adalah jelas bahawa kenyataan-kenyataan dimuatnaik ini adalah merupakan ungkapan yang bersifat jelik yang mana ianya menghina para Sultan dan orang-orang Melayu di negara ini. Sultan tidak dapat membuat pertimbangan yang adil dan tidak mahu membantu masyarakat Cina dan India sepenuh hati. Negeri Perlis, Kelantan dan Pahang telah dikaitkan dengan kejadian yang tidak diingini. [30] Elemen yang terakhir yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan adalah OKT secara sedar membuat dan memulakan penghantaran komen yang jelik sifatnya dan dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain. Berdasarkan keterangan SP1 ternyata bahawa beliau sendiri telah menyatakan bahawa kenyataaan-kenyataan atau komen yang dikeluarkan oleh OKT ini adalah berniat untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain di mana SP1 sendiri juga menyatakan bahawa beliau juga berasa sangat sakit hati dan marah dengan kenyataan OKT tersebut. S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [31] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PP v Rutinin Suhaimi (2013) 2 CLJ 427 yang telah diputuskan seperti berikut: “[17] As for evidence in respect of intention, it is always a matter of inference. From the fact that an offensive remark pertaining to the HRH Sultan of Perak had been posted on the online visitor book, it can be inferred that the accused had intended to cause annoyance. It is also unnecessary to call the victim of the annoying remark to the witness stand. Section 233(1)(b) does not say that the victim of the offence must actually feel annoyed or abused. The provision only says that the offender must have intention to annoy or abuse. Therefore it is sufficient if the communication in question has the tendency to cause annoyance or abuse to any person. The posting in question says that the HRH Sultan of Perak is "gila" (mad). Although, HRH was not called to testify, it is obvious that such a remark is intended to cause annoyance. Lest it be forgotten, the remark was not posted in a private internet chat session but on the online visitor book of the home page of HRH. Therefore, the prosecution had tendered sufficient inferential evidence to prove intention.” S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [32] Prinsip kes Rutinin Suhaimi ini telah diterima pakai di dalam kes Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh iaitu kes Mohd Fahmi Reza Bin Mohd Zarin lawan PP [2019] 1 LNS 120 di mukasurat 20 kes:- “[30] Secara ringkasnya, prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes PP v. Rutinin Suhaimin (supra) itu, yang saya terima pakai bagi maksud kes Perayu ini, adalah seperti berikut: (i) elemen kedua dan ketiga dalam pertuduhan terhadap Perayu ini hanya perlu dibuktikan secara inferens: (ii) seksyen 233(1)(a) tiada memperuntukkan kehendak atau keperluan memanggil orang yang menjadi mangsa kepada komunikasi yang menyakitkan hati itu; (iii) seksyen 233(1)(a) itu juga tidak menyebut bahawa orang yang mengatakan komunikasi tersebut menimbulkan sakit hati atau marah kepadanya mesti membuktikan keadaan marah atau sakit hatinya itu; (iv) adalah memadai jika dibuktikan kepada Mahkamah bahawa komunikasi itu mempunyai kecenderungan untuk menyebabkan kemarahan atau sakit hati kepada orang. [31] Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa keterangan SP1, SP4 dan SP6 telah berjaya tanpa S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 apa-apa keraguan munasabah untuk mewujudkan dan membuat suatu inferens bahawa komunikasi yang dibuat oleh Perayu itu menyakitkan hati dan mempunyai kecenderungan untuk menyebabkan kemarahan atau sakit hati kepada orang lain.” [33] OKT telah memuatnaik kenyataan-kenyataan yang jelas secara “live” di laman “Facebook” miliknya dan semestinya OKT berniat untuk menyakiti hati orang lain, OKT sedar bahawa “Facebook” merupakan satu platform media yang akan dilayari oleh ramai orang dari masa ke semasa yang mana laman “Facebook” OKT dilayari oleh 2100 pengunjung. [34] Bagi Pertuduhan Kedua di bawah seksyen 504 KK, pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan 3 elemen seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah sebelum ini. [35] Elemen pertama ialah OKT telah memulakan penghantaran komen tersebut dengan sengaja mengaibkan. HMS telah merujuk kepada keterangan SP1 serta video yang ditayangkan di Mahkamah semasa perbicaran, dan membuat dapatan bahawa OKT telah mengeluarkan kenyataan yang berbentuk tohmahan dan penghinaan terhadap Sultan dan orang Melayu. Kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: “Don’t blame Sultan or don’t blame the Malays. Malay Muslim because there is a rule of law where they cannot learn more. They cannot have higher IQ. They must follows UMNO or PAS … S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Maybe a Sultan would want a 1 million,2 millions,3 millions, 4 millions, 5 millions. Do you think in Malaysia a Sultan wants to help Indian Chinese Malays wholeheartedly”. [36] Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa kenyataan-kenyataan ini telah mengaibkan Sultan khususnya dan orang Melayu amnya. OKT dalam pembelaannya mengatakan bahawa Sultan yang dimaksudkan bukan terdiri dari Sultan di Negeri-Negeri di Malaysia. [37] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa apabila dibaca dan diteliti keseluruhan kenyaataan yang dimuatnaik oleh OKT yang mana jelas memaparkan bahawa Sultan yang dimaksudkan adalah Sultan-Sultan di Negeri-Negeri di Malaysia dan bukannya di Negara lain. [38] Elemen Kedua adalah OKT telah memulakan penghantaran komen tersebut bagi mendatangkan kebangkitan marah kepada mana-mana orang. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada keterangan SP1 yang di dalam keterangannya secara jelas menegaskan bahawa beliau merasa marah dan tersinggung apabila mendengar kenyataan-kenyataan yang telah dikeluarkan oleh OKT di dalam videonya itu. [39] Seterusnya, sekira diamati kenyataan-kenyataan itu yang dibaca oleh mana-mana orang terutamanya orang Melau di Negara ini, ianya sudah tentu akan membangkitkan kemarahan kepada orang-orang Melayu memandangkan perkataan-perkataan yang telah digunakan oleh OKT seperti: S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 “Malay Muslim..they cannot learn more. They canot have higher IQ. They must follows UMNO or PAS … Do you think in Malaysia a Sultan wants to help Indian Chinese Malays wholeheartedly?” [40] Dapat dirumuskan bahawa orang-orang Melayu di Malaysia malas belajar dan tidak mempunyai daya fikiran yang tinggi dan sentiasa menurut telunjuk kehendak parti Melayu iaitu UMNO dan PAS. Memandangkan kedudukan Sultan-Sultan yang merupakan ketua agama Islam di setiap Negeri dan sangat dihormati oleh orang Malayu maka dengan mengatakan Sultan tidak mahu membantu kaum India dan Cina di Negara ini adalah satu tohmahan yang tidak dapat diterima oleh Sultan khususnya dan orang Melayu amnya. Kenyataan-kenyataan ini sememangnya tidak berasas dan membangkitkan kemarahan orang Melayu. [41] Elemen ketiga adalah OKT telah memulakan penghantaran komen tersebut dengan maksud memecahkan keamanan awam. HMS berpendapat bahawa elemen ini adalah saling berkaitan dengan elemen mendatangkan kebangkitan marah di atas. Apabila kenyataan-kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh OKT dapat membangkitkan kemarahan orang lain, maka secara tidak langsung boleh menggugat keamanan serta memecah belahkan perpaduan kaum. Tambahan pula di negara yang terdapatnya pelbagai kaum seperti Malaysia. [42] Merujuk kepada kes Liau Choy Wan v PP (2017) 10 CLJ 649 yang mana Yang Arif telah menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 “It continues to state that it requires an intention to insult and thereby to give provocation to the person insulted and an intention that such provocation is likely to cause the person so insulted to break the public peace or commit any other offence ..such abusive comments could lead to severe repercussions that are likely to cause a breach of peace… This is all the more so in the context of the multi-racial society in which we exist. The possibility of racial unrest occurring cannot be underestimated or ignored”. [43] Sekiranya dihayati kenyataan-kenyataan OKT yang dimuatnaik itu, penghinaan yang amat ketara yang telah dilontarkan oleh OKT kepada orang Melayu dan Sultan dan dikatakan masyarakat Cina dan India tidak mendapat layanan yang sewajarnya dari Pemerintah di Negeri-Negeri. Jelas di sini bahawa OKT mempunyai niat untuk mewujudkan ketegangan kaum di Negara ini yang mana kenyataan-kenyataan yang berbentuk provokasi boleh menyebabkan berlakunya pergaduhan di antara kaum dan boleh memecahkan keamanan awam sekiranya dibiarkan. [44] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti alasan penghakiman HMS dan berpendapat bahawa HMS telah memberi pertimbangan ke atas pembelaan-pembelaan OKT melalui pemeriksaan balas yang dilakukan ke atas saksi-saksi pendakwaan. HMS telah memenuhi kehendak- kehendak yang dituntut di dalam kes Looi Kow Chai & Anor lwn PP(2003) 1 CLJ 734, Balachandran lwn PP (2005) 1 CLJ 85 dan kes PP v Mohd. Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 dalam membuat S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 keputusan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap OKT di atas pertuduhan- pertuduhan dan oleh itu OKT dipanggil untuk membela diri terhadap pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut. HMS memutuskan bahawa pembelaan OKT bersifat penafian semata-mata [45] Mahkamah ini bersetuju dangan HMS yang membuat keputusan bahawa pembelaan OKT merupakan pembelaan berbentuk penafian semata-mata. Keterangan atau penjelasan yang diberikan oleh OKT dalam pembelaannya hendaklah dipertimbangkan bersama-sama keseluruhan keterangan dalam kes ini seperti yang dijelaskan dalam kes Saminathan v. PP [1955] 1 LNS 138; Mat v. Public Prosecutor [1963] 1 LNS 82 [46] Di peringkat pembelaan, HMS telah memberi pertimbangan bahawa OKT menyatakan yang beliau tiada pengetahuan berkaitan muatnaik video tersebut. Namun apabila beliau menyatakan bahawa video tersebut adalah dibuat secara “mode private” dan tiada akses diberikan kepada mana-mana orang lain, menunjukkan secara tidak langsung OKT sebenarnya mempunyai pengetahuan berkaitan muatnaik video tersebut. Pembelaan OKT yang menyatakan bahawa video tersebut adalah dimuatnaik secara tertutup tidak dapat menyangkal keterangan saksi pihak pendakwaan yang jelas dapat menunjukkan bahawa video tersebut telah dimuatnaik, dilihat, dikomen dan ‘like’ oleh orang awam. Jika pembelaan OKT adalah benar sudah pasti video OKT ini tidak akan dapat dilihat oleh SP1 dan orang awam yang lain. Selanjutnya keterangan OKT dan saksi pendakwaan adalah selari dalam menyatakan bahawa OKT S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 adalah pengendali akaun “Facebook” Arunakiri Nathan II yang telah memuatnaikkan video tersebut. [47] Walaupun pembelaan OKT menyatakan bahawa video tersebut telah disunting dan disebarkan, namun OKT tidak dapat menunjukkan kepada Mahkamah bahagian manakah yang dikatakan telah disunting pada video tersebut serta tiada sebarang keterangan dikemukakan bagi menyokong pembelaan beliau ini. [48] Apabila OKT memberi penjelasan bahawa dia tidak berniat sedemikian apabila memuatnaikkan video tersebut, HMS merasakan keganjilan pada penjelasan tersebut. Ini adalah kerana sekiranya OKT tidak berniat untuk menyakiti hati sesiapa jadi apakah tujuan dia mengeluarkan kenyataan-kenyatan sedemikian serta menyebut nama Sultan dan orang Melayu Islam secara live dalam video tersebut dan seterusnya memuatnaikkan video tersebut dalam tetapan Umum (Public) di akaun facebooknya? Jelas pembelaan OKT yang menyatakan video tersebut dimuatnaik bukan bertujuan untuk menyakitkan hati atau mencetuskan kemarahan mana-mana orang dan seterusnya menggugat keamanan awam di negara ini, adalah tidak dapat diterima. [49] Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa pembelaan OKT amat minima dan tidak sama sekali menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pihak pendakwaan, malah keterangan pihak pembelaan tidak lebih dari penafian semata-mata, yang tidak boleh diterima oleh Mahkamah ini sebagai keraguan yang munasabah. Inilah prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes PP v. NurHassan bin Salip Hashim & Anor [1993] 2 CLJ 551. Adalah menjadi suatu prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa penafian bukanlah suatu pembelaan yang boleh S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan. Prinsip ini diputuskan dalam kes Mr Losali V. PP [2012] 2 CLJ 178; [2011] 1 LNS 501 dan kes Rahani Ahmad lwn. PP [2013] 1 LNS 1536. Pihak pendakwaan mengenakan pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 dan seksyen 504 KK yang merupakan pertuduhan yang bertindih [50] Peguambela terpelajar OKT berhujah bahawa kedua-dua pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah bertindih dan membawa maksud yang sama lantas menjadikannya bahaya berganda (double jeopardy) dan telah memprejudiskan OKT. [51] Mahkamah merujuk kepada elemen-elemen yang terdapat di dalam kedua-dua pertuduhan sebagaimana yang telah dibincangkan sebelum ini. Mahkamah berpendapat terdapat kelainan atau perbezaan berkaitan elemen-elemen di dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 dan 504 KK yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. [52] Selain daripada itu, Mahkamah merujuk kepada Artikel 145 (3) Perlembagaan Pesekutuan yang telah memperuntukkan bahawa Peguam Negara mempunyai kuasa budi bicara bagi membawa, menjalankan atau memberhentikan apa-apa prosiding mengenai suatu kesalahan selain daripada prosiding di Mahkamah Syariah. Manakala kedudukan Peguam Negara selaku Pendakwa Raya disebutkan secara khusus dalam seksyen 376 (1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang bertanggungjawab ke atas semua prosiding jenayah di Malaysia. S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [53] Dalam kes Long bin Samat v. Pendakwa Raya (1974) 2 MLJ152, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Pendakwa Raya mempunyai budubicara untuk menetapkan apa jua pertuduhan yang difikirkan sesuai terhadap seseorang tertuduh dan Mahkamah tidak ada kuasa untuk mengganggu budi bicara tersebut. Begitu juga dalam kes Karpal Singh & Yang Lain v. Pendakwa Raya (1991) 2 MLJ 544 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa kuasa budi bicara Peguam Negara di bawah Perkara 145 (3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan itu adalah muktamad dan tidak boleh disoal atau digantikan oleh kuasa budibicara Mahkamah. [54] Bersandarkan kepada alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa tidak dapat dibuktikan bahawa wujudnya bahaya berganda dalam mengenakan pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut ke atas OKT. [55] Setelah meneliti Rekod Rayuan (semua keterangan dan dokumen), Alasan Penghakiman dan setelah memberi pertimbangan ke atas hujahan bertulis dan hujahan lisan, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa rayuan OKT ke atas sabitan adalah tidak bermerit dan dengan ini ditolak. RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. AA-42CY-3-06/2022 [56] Ini merupakan rayuan pihak pendakwaan ke atas hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan oleh HMS ke atas OKT. Perayu iaitu pihak pendakwaan tidak berpuashati dengan hukuman-hukuman yang diberikan oleh HMS iaitu denda RM10,000 jika gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara bagi pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 dan 5 hari penjara dan denda S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 RM5,000 jika gagal bayar 3 bulan penjara bagi pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 504 KK. [57] Pihak pendakwaan menegaskan bahawa hukuman yang diberikan oleh HMS ke atas OKT adalah tidak setimpal dengan kesalahan yang dilakukannya. Pihak pendakwaan memohon agar Mahkamah ini menggunakan budi bicara untuk menaikkan hukuman sedia ada sepertimana yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 316(b)(ii) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [58] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa video yang dimuatnaik oleh OKT melalui aplikasi “Facebook” adalah sesuatu yang sensitif dan secara langsung OKT telah dengan sedar membuat satu komen yang jelik atau komen yang tidak baik terhadap Sultan, bangsa Melayu dan ianya bukanlah perbincangan ilmiah seperti yang didakwa oleh OKT. Video tersebut telah ditonton oleh SP1 dan ianya menimbulkan kemarahan serta sakit hati setelah SP1 menonton video tersebut. Keterangan SP1 semasa pemeriksaan utama adalah ‘Saya buat laporan polis kerana pernyataan itu bersifat penghinaan kepada orag Melayu dan Sultan. Saya sangat rasa sakit hati dan marah kerana saya seorang Melayu, tinggal di Malaysia dan Sultan adalah orang Melayu. Pernyataan lelaki itu di dalam video adalah tidak baik kerana ianya perkataan negative dan cetuskan emosi perasaan marah. Sultan yang dinyatakan oleh lelaki itu dalam video tersebut, saya percaya dalam konteks Malaysia.’ [59] Berdasarkan keterangan SP1 ini adalah jelas bahawa video yang dimuatnaik oleh OKT telah mengganggu emosi SP1 atau sesiapa sahaja yang melihatnya kerana ianya mengandungi perkara-perkara yang negatif yang boleh memecahkan keharmonian masyarakat. Oleh itu, S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 hukuman yang setimpal dengan perbuatan OKT di dalam kes ini perlulah diambil serius oleh Mahkamah dalam menentukan hukuman yang sewajarnya. [60] Manakala pihak OKT berhujah bahawa ini adalah kesalahan pertama OKT, OKT telah insaf dan OKT tidak berniat untuk menyakiti hati sesiapa terutama sekali orang Melayu dan Sultan. [61] Dalam memberi pertimbangan ke atas rayuan ini, prinsip undang- undang yang mantap berkaitan dengan rayuan ke atas hukuman adalah Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan tidak seharusnya campur tangan dengan hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim perbicaraan dan selalunya tidak akan menukar hukuman melainkan hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan itu berlawanan dengan prinsip-prinsip hukuman atau berlawanan dengan undang-undang. Dalam kes Bhandulananda Jayatilake & PP [1981] 1 LNS 139, Raja Azlan Shah, Hakim Mahkamah persekutuan telah berkata seperti berikut : “Is the sentence harsh and manifestly excessive? We would paraphrase it in this way. As this is an appeal against the exercise by the learned judge of a discretion vested in him, is the sentence so far outside the normal discretionary limits as to enable this court to say that its imposition must have involved an error of law of some description? I have had occasion to say elsewhere, that the very concept of judicial discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred. That is quite S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 inevitable. Human nature being what it is, different judges applying the same principles at the same time in the same country to similar facts may sometimes reach different conclusions (see Jamieson v Jamieson [1952] ac 525 at 549). It is for the reason that some very conscientious judges have thought it their duty to visit particular crimes with exemplary sentence; whilst others equally conscientious have thought in their duty to view the same crimes the leniency. Therefore sentences do vary in apparently similar circumstances with the habit of mind of the particular judges. It is for the 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.” [62] Nada yang sama telah diucapkan oleh YA Azahar Mohamed JCA (pada ketika itu) dalam kes PP v. Ramakrishnan Subramaniam & ORS [2012] 9 CLJ 443 seperti berikut : “Mengikut prinsip penghukuman yang sedia ada , setiap orang yang bersalah akan menerima hukuman yang setimpal dengan bentuk kesalahan yang dilakukan. Mahkamah hendaklah menjatuhkan hukuman menurut undang-undang untuk menentukan supaya hukuman yang dikenakan terhadap pesalah itu adil, bersesuaian dan setimpal dengan apa-apa kesalahan yang dilakukannya itu. Adalah juga menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 mantap bahawa Mahkamah yang mendengar rayuan tidak seharusnya campur tangan dengan hukuman yang dikenakan oleh hakim perbicaraan dan selalunya tidak akan menukar hukuman melainkan ianya berpuas hati bahawa hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim berkenaan itu ternyata amat tidak memadai atau mencukupi atau keterlaluan atau tidak sah atau pun tidak merupakan hukuman yang wajar memandangkan semua fakta yang didedahkan, atau bahawa Mahkamah tersebut jelas tersalah didalam memakai prinsip yang betul dalam penilaian hukuman. Prinsip undang-undang yang menentukan kawalan dan semakan keputusan berkaitan dengan hukuman telah digariskan dengan jelas dalam kes Bhandulananda Jayatilake v P P[1981] 1 LNS 139 dan kes Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP [2002] 3 CLJ 457” [63] Mahkamah ini juga tertarik kepada kes-kes yang dirujuk dalam kes PP v Nguyen Thi Huong [2015] 2 CLJ 102 yang mana menjelaskan prinsip-prinsip sebagaimana berikut: Principle regarding appellate interference of sentence The principles regarding appellate interference of sentences imposed have been set out in the case of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP [2002] 3 AMR 3101; [2002] 3 MLJ 193 as follows: “It is of utmost importance to stress here that the appellate court will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence passed by the S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 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, see PP v Loo Choon Fatt [1976]2MLJ 256” In the case of PP v Loo Choon Fatt referred to above it was held as follows: “The principles to be applied in imposing sentence however are the same in every case. The high court sitting in the exercise of its revisionary powers will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence of the lower court is either manifestly inadequate or grossly excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed on the record or to all the facts which the ought to take judicial notice of, that is to say, that the lower court clearly has erred in applying the correct principles in the assessment of the sentence. It is a firmly established practice that the court will not alter sentence merely because it might have passed a different sentence. [64] Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang jelas bahawa setakat ini tiada penetapan kadar hukuman yang wajar dikenakan oleh Mahkamah dalam satu kesalahan jenayah. Tiada garis panduan S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 berkenaan hukuman dikeluarkan dalam bentuk panduan hukuman (“sentencing guidelines”). [65] Apa yang ada adalah kadar hukuman minimum atau maksimum dinyatakan di dalam undang-undang bertulis berkenaan. Mahkamah boleh menjatuhkan hukuman yang dinyatakan dalam lingkungan hukuman dalam undang-undang tersebut. [66] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah perlu menjatuhkan hukuman dalam lingkungan tersebut dengan mengambil kira prinsip-prinsip penghukuman seperti umur tertuduh, latar belakang tertuduh, faktor peringanan dan pemberatan hukuman. Di samping itu prinsip-prinsip berkenaan dengan tujuan hukuman sebagai pencegahan, balasan dan kepentingan awam. [67] Mahkamah ini berpendapat adalah wajar untuk Mahkamah ini meneliti bahagian-bahagian penting yang terdapat dalam alasan penghakiman HMS dan menilai sama ada prinsip undang-undang berkaitan dengan hukuman telah diberi pertimbangan sewajarnya oleh HMS. [68] Puan HMS telah mengambilkira faktor bahawa OKT tiada sabitan lampau seperti yang dinyatakan di perenggan 2 Alasan Penghakiman di muka surat 54 dan 77, Jilid 1 Rekod Rayuan. Dari pemerhatian Mahkamah ini ke atas alasan HMS menjatuh hukum ke atas OKT, hanya mitigasi ini sahaja yang dipertimbangkan oleh HMS. Selebihnya, HMS mempertimbangkan hujahan pihak pendakwaan yang antara lain memohon hukuman yang berat dan berbentuk deteren dijatuhkan ke atas OKT atas alasan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT di dalam kes ini S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 adalah serius dan kerap terjadi pada masa kini. Oleh itu, HMS mengatakan bahawa beliau perlu memberikan satu hukuman yang boleh menunjukkan kepada OKT khasnya dan juga masyarakat amnya bahawa Mahkamah memandang serius terhadap kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT ini. [69] Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa ketika kejadian, OKT berumur 38 tahun dan ini bermakna beliau adalah seorang dewasa serta matang. OKT sepatutnya tahu bahawa memulakan satu komunikasi dengan membuat video melalui aplikasi “Facebook” yang jelik sifatnya dan dengan niat untuk menyakiti orang hati lain adalah satu kesalahan yang serius. Tambahan pula, hantaran yang dibuat oleh OKT adalah berbaur penghinaan kepada Sultan dan kaum Melayu. Jika dinilai gaya bahasa yang digunakan di dalam video melalui aplikasi “Facebook” yang dibuat oleh OKT, beliau adalah seorang yang waras dan berpendidikan. [70] OKT sepatutnya lebih berhati-hati semasa membuat apa-apa hantaran melalui aplikasi di media sosial lebih-lebih lagi di dalam kes ini, pengataan-pengataan OKT dibuat secara “live” dan secara sedar tanpa paksaan dari mana-mana pihak. Video yang dimuatnaik oleh OKT melalui aplikasi “Facebook” adalah sesuatu yang sensitif dan secara langsung OKT telah dengan sedar membuat satu komen yang jelik atau komen yang tidak baik terhadap Sultan, bangsa Melayu dan ianya bukanlah perbincangan ilmiah seperti yang didakwa oleh OKT. [71] Berdasarkan keterangan SP1 adalah jelas bahawa video yang dimuatnaik oleh OKT telah mengganggu emosi SP1 atau sesiapa sahaja S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 yang melihatnya kerana ianya mengandungi perkara-perkara yang negatif yang boleh memecahkan keharmonian masyarakat. [72] Mahkamah ini ambil maklum bahawa kes ini merupakan kes perbicaraan penuh yang mana keterangan saksi-saksi polis, saksi awam dan saksi pakar telah memberi keterangan dan ianya melibatkan kos yang tinggi. Oleh itu, hukuman-hukuman yang dikenakan terhadap OKT mestilah mencerminkan keseriusan Mahkamah dalam menghukum pesalah-pesalah yang memuatnaik kandungan video berbentuk penghinaan ke atas institusi Kesultanan Melayu atau bangsa. Pengataan- pengataan OKT ini akan memberi persepsi negatif di kalangan masyarakat terhadap institusi Kesultanan Melayu dan secara tidak langsung membangkitkan kemarahan atau sakit hati orang-orang Melayu Islam. [73] Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa HMS gagal mengambilkira keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT di dalam kes ini yang mana video yang telah dimuatnaik oleh OKT membabitkan sensitiviti agama dan kaum serta menggugat keharmonian masyarakat di Malaysia. Tambahan pula, hantaran video tersebut boleh ditonton oleh semua kaum di Malaysia atau di mana sahaja. [74] Merujuk kepada Seksyen 233(3) Akta 588, hukuman bagi kesalahan ini adalah denda tidak melebihi lima puluh ribu ringgit atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi satu tahun atau kedua- duanya dan juga boleh didenda selanjutnya satu ribu ringgit bagi setiap hari kesalahan itu diteruskan selepas pensabitan. HMS telah menjatuhkan hukuman ke atas OKT dengan denda RM10,000.00, jika gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 [75] Manakala bagi seksyen 504 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan hukuman penjara selama tempoh yang boleh sampai 2 tahun dan boleh juga dikenakan denda atau kedua-duanya sekali bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen tersebut. HMS telah menjatuhkan hukuman ke atas OKT, penjara 5 hari dan denda RM5,000.00 jika gagal bayar 3 bulan penjara. [76] Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa hukuman-hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan ke atas OKT adalah sangat tidak berpatutan dan ternyata tidak memadai (masnifestly inadequate) dengan mengambilkira pengataan- pengataan OKT ini akan memberi persepsi negatif di kalangan masyarakat terhadap institusi Kesultanan Melayu dan secara tidak langsung membangkitkan kemarahan atau sakit hati orang-orang Melayu Islam. Hukuman-hukuman yang diberikan ini tidak dapat dijadikan pengajaran kepada OKT dengan kesalahan yang dilakukannya yang mana pada fikiran Mahkamah ini ianya boleh menyebabkan ketenteraman awam terganggu dan pengataan-pengataan tersebut adalah sensitif dan menyentuh sentimen perkauman di negara ini. [77] HMS telah gagal mempertimbangkan faktor kepentingan awam dalam menentukan hukuman yang berpatutan dan memadai terhadap OKT. HMS tidak menyatakan dalam mana-mana perenggan di dalam alasan penghakiman beliau bahawa kepentingan awam telah diambilkira dalam menentukan hukuman yang dikenakan terhadap OKT di dalam kes ini. [78] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada bentuk hukuman di Mahkamah lain yang melibatkan kesalahan yang berbentuk penghinaan agama di platform media sosial bagi melihat “trend of sentencing”: - S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 (i) PP lawan Mohd Nor' Muzil Mohd Razalli(Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang, Selangor)(BK-62CY-1-07/2022) Pada 20 Julai 2022, OKT mengaku salah atas pertuduhan menghina Nabi Muhammad SAW. Mahkamah Sesyen Sepang, Selangor menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM50,000 jika gagal bayar 6 bulan penjara. (ii) PP lawan Mohamad Yazid Kong Abdullah (Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur) (WA-62CY-6-03/2019 Pada 11 Mac 2019, OKT mengaku salah atas pertuduhan menghina Nabi Muhammad SAW dan Islam dengan memuat naik kenyataan jelik di media sosial pada 24 Februari 2019. Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur menjatuhkan hukuman penjara tujuh bulan dan denda RM10,000 jika gagal bayar 2 bulan penjara. (iii) Alister Cogia lawan PP (Mahkamah Tinggi Kuching, Sarawak) Pada 13 September 2019, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuching telah membuat semakan dan mengurangkan hukuman penjara dari 10 tahun kepada 6 tahun dan denda RM50,000 dikekalkan. OKT terdahulunya dijatuhi hukuman penjara 10 tahun dan didenda RM50,000 selepas mengaku bersalah bagi 10 pertuduhan menghina S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 Nabi Muhammad SAW menerusi akaun Facebook miliknya, ‘Ayea Yea’. KESIMPULAN [79] Rayuan pihak pendakwaan ke atas hukuman adalah bermerit dan dibenarkan. Hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh HMS ke atas OKT diketepikan dan digantikan dengan hukuman seperti berikut: i) Pertuduhan pertama di bawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta 588 dijatuhkan hukuman 2 bulan penjara dari tarikh jatuh hukum (30/11/2023) dan denda RM10,000.00 jika gagal bayar 3 bulan penjara. ii) Petuduhan kedua di bawah seksyen 504 KK dijatuhkan hukuman 4 bulan penjara dari tarkh jatuh hukum (30/11/2023) dan denda RM5,000.00 jika gagal 3 bulan penjara. Kedua-dua hukuman penjara berjalan serentak dari tarikh jatuh hukum. Tarikh: 03.01.2024 t.t (ABDUL WAHAB BIN MOHAMED) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA IPOH, PERAK S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 Pihak-pihak: Tetuan S. S. Seelan & Associates bagi pihak Perayu. No. 568-9-25, 9th Floor Mutiara Complex, Jalan Ipoh 51200 Kuala Lumpur Tel: 03.62501469/1376 Emel: seelanlaw@yahoo.com Ruj: MSA/01/108/2023(J) Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Perak bagi pihak Responden. Tingkat 1, Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab 60212 Perak S/N 5qEl4p5LF0Gwht9LcOx5rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

P-05(SH)-451-12/2020

PERAYU Ja'afar Bin Halid RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Rayuan Jenayah - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman Mahkamah Tinggi - 3 pertuduhan membunuh di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan 5 pertuduhan cubaan membunuh di bawah seksyen 307 Kanun yang sama - Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan: (1) Bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah seksven 302 Kanun Keseksaan, perayu dijatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati; (2) Bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 307 Kanun Keseksaan, perayu dikenakan bukuman penjara 15 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan hukuman berjalan serentak - Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan: (1) Perayu telah berjaya membuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa beliau mengalami sakit otak (legal insanity) pada masa kejadian sebagaimana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan di mana ia tidak terjumlah kepada satu kesalahan jenayah; (2) Menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah seksyen 347 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, Mahkamah Rayuan membebas dan melepaskan perayu kerana beliau melakukan kesalahan semasa hilang akal dan tidak mengetahui perbuatan beliau adalah salah atau menyalahi undang-undang (legal insanity); (3) Menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah seksyen 348 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, perayu dihantar ke Hospital Mental di Perak atau di Johor mengikut kesesuaian dan Mahkamah akan menyediakan laporan kepada Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang DiPertuan Agong bagi perkenan Tuanku di bawah seksyen 348(2) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah; (4) Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman dibenarkan; (5) Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi atas sabitan dan hukuman diketepikan.

09/01/2024

YA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin AbdullahYA Dato' S.M. Komathy A/P Suppiah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=18755479-eb84-4a54-a1d1-92d8bb263943&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO.P-05 (M)-443-12/2020, P-05(SH)-451-12/2020 DAN P-05 (SH)-452-12/2020 DI ANTARA JAAFAR BIN HALID - PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA - RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang Perbicaraan Jenayah No.45B-12-09/2017, 45B-13-09/2017 dan 45B-14-09/2017 Pendakwa Raya Lawan Jaafar bin Halid] KORAM: HADHARIAH BINTI SYED ISMAIL, HMR HAJI AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, HMR S.M KOMATHY SUPPIAH, HMR 09/01/2024 09:01:47 P-05(SH)-451-12/2020 Kand. 65 S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 PENGHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH Pengenalan [1] Perayu dalam ketiga-tiga rayuan ini adalah Jaafar bin Halid. Pada 1.12.2016, jam lebih kurang 7.15 petang hingga 7.30 malam, bertempat di jalan susur masuk ke Jambatan Pertama Pulau Pinang, Lebuh Raya Tun Dr. Lim Chong Eu, Georgetown, Pulau Pinang, dengan menggunakan sepucuk senjata api jenis Glock 19 Gen 4 No. Siri ABFR 017, perayu telah menembak 8 orang mangsa. Daripada 8 mangsa itu, tiga telah terbunuh dan 5 lagi mengalami kecederaan. [2] Lapan pertuduhan dikenakan terhadap perayu iaitu 3 pertuduhan membunuh di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan 5 pertuduhan cubaan membunuh di bawah seksyen 307 Kanun yang sama. Rayuan No.443 [3] Selepas satu perbicaaran penuh, pada 16.12.2020, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang telah mensabitkan perayu bersalah bagi tiga kesalahan membunuh tiga mangsa berikut: (i) Ong Teik Kwong (OTK) dengan cara menembak di bahagian belakang kepala. Pada hari kejadian berlaku, perayu adalah pengawal peribadi (bodyguard) OTK. OTK berada ditempat duduk pemandu kereta BMW No. PMF 11 semasa beliau ditembak oleh perayu. Perayu pula berada di tempat duduk belakang kereta. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (ii) Choi Hon Ming (CHM) dengan cara menembak di bahagian dada dan peha kanan. CHM berada di dalam kereta melalui jalan yang sama bila beliau ditembak; dan (iii) Senthil Murugiah (SM) dengan cara menembak di bahagian dada kiri. SM menunggang motosikal melalui jalan yang sama bila beliau ditembak. [4] Bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan, perayu dijatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati. Rayuan No. 451 Dan 452 [5] Pada 16.12.2020, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang juga mensabitkan perayu bersalah atas lima kesalahan cuba membunuh lima mangsa berikut: (i) Arivarni a/p Krishnan dengan cara menembak di kepala. Pada masa kejadian, mangsa sedang memandu kereta melalui jalan yang sama. (ii) Nurul Huda binti Ab Aziz dengan cara menembak di bahu. Pada masa kejadian, mangsa sedang memandu kereta bersama 4 orang anaknya, melalui jalan yang sama. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (iii) Lee Hong Boon dengan cara menembak di dada kiri. Mangsa sedang menunggang motosikal semasa beliau ditembak. (iv) Mohamad Amirul Amin bin Mohamed Amer dengan cara menembak di dada sebelah kiri. Mangsa telah memberhentikan motosikal untuk melihat dan membantu mangsa yang cedera apabila beliau ditembak oleh perayu. (v) Puoh Bee Joo dengan cara menembak di bahu. Mangsa sedang memandu kereta semasa beliau ditembak. [6] Bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 307 Kanun Keseksaan, perayu telah dikenakan hukuman penjara 15 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan hukuman berjalan serentak. [7] Perayu merayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman bagi kesemua lapan pertuduhan. [8] Di peringkat kes pendakwaan, perbuatan menembak 8 orang mangsa (actus reus) diakui oleh perayu. Perayu menafikan beliau ada niat (mens rea) untuk membunuh atau cuba membunuh. Pembelaan perayu ialah beliau mengalami sakit otak (legal insanity) dan tidak sedar apa yang berlaku pada masa kejadian. Kes Pendakwaan [9] Pada 1.12.2016 jam lebih kurang 7.26 petang, semasa Kpl Faizal bin Hamdan sedang bertugas di Bilik Kawalan IPK Pulau Pinang, beliau telah menerima panggilan telefon daripada satu lelaki Melayu bernama S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Azizan memaklumkan mengenai kejadian tembakan di susur jalan sebelum naik ke Jambatan Pertama Pulau Pinang, Lebuhraya Tun Dr. Lim Chong Eu dan telah memaklumkan kejadian itu kepada pihak DCC Timur Laut sepertimana dalam laporan polis Jelutong 7799/16. [10] Seorang anggota polis peronda, Kpl Azlan Shah (SP30) yang telah menerima maklumat tersebut terus menghala ke tempat kejadian. [11] Sampai di tempat kejadian, SP30 melihat berlaku kemalangan yang melibatkan beberapa buah kenderaan. SP30 nampak satu lelaki di sebelah kiri bahu jalan dalam keadaan berlumuran darah dan ketakutan sambil memerhatikan kereta BMW dengan nombor pendaftaran PMF 11 (kereta BMW). [12] Kemudian, SP30 melihat perayu datang dari pintu hadapan sebelah kiri kereta BMW. Pada ketika itu, perayu dilihat sedang menyelitkan pistol di bahagian belakang pinggangnya sebelah kanan. SP30 juga melihat seorang lelaki yang dalam keadaan berlumuran darah di kepala sedang berada di bahagian tempat duduk pemandu kereta BMW tersebut. [13] SP30 telah menghampiri perayu. Pada ketika itu, perayu sedang memegang bahagian pinggangnya seolah-olah ingin mengambil pistol. SP30 telah memberi amaran dan mengarahkan perayu meletakkan pistol dan merebahkan badan, namun perayu enggan memberikan kerjasama. Selepas itu, perayu dilihat telah mencekah pistol, mengeluarkan kelopak peluru dan meletakkan pistol itu di atas tanah. SP30 seterusnya mengarahkan perayu merebahkan badan, tetapi perayu enggan memberikan kerjasama. SP30 kemudiannya menerpa ke arah perayu dan dengan bantuan anggota lain, perayu berjaya ditangkap oleh SP30. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [14] Pegawai penyiasat kes, ASP Azmirul bin Abdul Aziz (SP38) mengesahkan bahawa perayu membawa bersamanya 2 magazine. Setiap satu magazine mengandungi 10 butir peluru. Ini bermakna perayu membawa 20 butir peluru. Hasil siasatan beliau, SP38 mendapati sejumlah 17 butir peluru telah dilepaskan oleh perayu. Tetapi, hanya 11 kelongsong peluru dijumpai di tempat kejadian. [15] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Hakim Bicara mendapati pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie bagi kesemua 8 pertuduhan. Hakim Bicara berpuashati bahawa perayu mempunyai niat untuk membunuh dan percubaan untuk membunuh atas dua alasan. Alasan pertama ialah perayu menggunakan senjata api (Tham Kai Yau & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1976] 1 LNS 159; Sainal Abidin bin Mading v PP [1999] 4 CL J 215). Alasan kedua ialah perayu menembak ketiga-tiga simati di bahagian penting badan iaitu di kepala dan dada. Tembakan di kepala menembusi otak. Tembakan di dada menembusi jantung. Dalam kedua-dua situasi, keterangan pakar perubatan (SP3) ialah mustahil untuk mangsa boleh hidup. Mengambilkira semua perkara ini, Hakim Bicara memutuskan perayu mempunyai niat untuk mendatangkan kecederaan yang pada lazimnya boleh membawa kepada kematian simati. [16] Bagi kesalahan percubaan membunuh 5 mangsa, Hakim Bicara mendapati perayu telah menembak mangsa-mangsa di bahagian kepala, dada dan bahu. Kecederaan kesemua mangsa adalah parah yang memerlukan pembedahan dan rawatan segera. Jika tidak, mereka juga akan menerima nasib yang sama seperti 3 mangsa yang meninggal dunia. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [17] Dengan terbuktinya kes prima facie, perayu dipanggil membela diri bagi kesemua 8 pertuduhan. Kes Pembelaan [18] Perayu mengambil dadah ganja sejak berumur 18 tahun. Pada umur 24 - 25 tahun, beliau mengambil dadah heroin. Pada usia awal 30 an, beliau mengambil dadah jenis syabu (methamphetamine). Semasa memberi keterangan di mahkamah pada tahun 2019, perayu berumur 40 tahun. Ketagihan perayu kepada dadah jenis heroin adalah teruk sehingga beliau terpaksa menjalani rawatan pengambilan ubat methadone. [19] Perayu diambil bekerja oleh Syarikat GMP Gaisa sebagai pengawal peribadi. Pada 30.11.2016, perayu telah ditugaskan untuk menjadi pengawal peribadi kepada Ong Teik Kwong yang dikenali oleh perayu sebagai Dato’ M. Perayu turut dibekalkan oleh majikannya dengan sepucuk pistol jenis Glock dan 20 butir peluru. [20] Sebelum kejadian tembakan berlaku, pada 1.12.2016, jam lebih kurang 7.00 pagi, OTK bersama rakan perniagaannya, Lim Boon Leng (SP37) dan perayu bertolak dari rumah OTK menuju ke Pulau Pinang dalam kereta BMW. Kereta BMW dipandu oleh OTK. SP37 duduk di tempat duduk penumpang hadapan. Perayu duduk di tempat duduk belakang OTK. Pada masa berkenaan, OTK dan SP37 ada pengetahuan bahawa perayu membawa senjata api bersama beliau. [21] Di Pulau Pinang, semasa OTK, SP37 dan perayu berada di Kafe Arabica, perayu melihat perbincangan antara OTK dengan kawannya S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 agak tegang. Disebabkan itu, perayu telah mengeluarkan pistol dan meletakkan di atas pehanya. Perbuatan perayu ditegur oleh OTK yang menyuruh perayu menyimpan semula pistolnya. Perayu menurut arahan OTK. [22] Semasa kereta BMW berada di atas lebuhraya menuju ke Jambatan Pertama Pulau Pinang, perayu merasa suhu badannya panas, jantung berdebar-debar dan mendengar suara bisikan di kiri kanan telinga dan ada kelibat hitam di sebelahnya. [23] Perayu cuba menenangkan fikirannya dengan membaca ayat kursi, tetapi bacaannya tidak lancar. Kemudian, perayu tidak ingat apa yang berlaku selepas itu. Beliau hanya tersedar apabila mendengar arahan SP30 supaya meletakkan pistol. Perayu menurut arahan polis dan meletakkan senjata. [24] Perayu tidak ingat sama sekali yang beliau telah menembak 8 orang mangsa. [25] Pada 21.6.2015, perayu didapati pengsan di masjid dan dibawa ke unit kecemasan Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) untuk rawatan dan pemeriksaan. Tetapi, perayu bertindak destruktif dan agresif selepas sedar. Ujian saringan urin menunjukkan perayu mengambil dadah methamphetamine/amphetamine dan benzodhiaziphine. Beliau dimasukkan ke wad psikiatri HKL dari 22.6.2015 hingga 26.6.2016 untuk distabilkan. [26] Pada tahun 2016, Dr. Mohammad Firdaus bin Abdul Aziz (SD2) adalah Pakar Psikiatri di HKL. SD2 adalah doktor yang merawat perayu S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 di wad psikiatri HKL dan menyediakan laporan perubatan D147. Mengikut D147, perayu menerima 5 rawatan susulan dan kali terakhir SD2 merawat perayu ialah pada 25.2.2016. [27] Semasa ditemubual oleh SD2, perayu mengaku beliau kerap mengambil dadah jenis methamphetamine dan enphitamine. Perayu juga mengaku beliau ada mengambil dadah jenis heroin dan telah pun mendapatkan rawatan methadone di klinik kesihatan terdekat. [28] SD2 memberi penjelasan, untuk mereka yang mengambil dadah jenis ETS emphathamine stimulant, antara symptom psikosis yang paling kerap adalah berhalusinasi iaitu mendengar suara atau melihat sesuatu yang tidak ada dan juga delusion. Delusion bermaksud percaya seseorang itu mahu mendatangkan kemudaratan, mahu mencederakan dia, berburuk sangka dengan orang. Sedangkan benda itu tidak betul. [29] Diagnosa SD2 dalam laporan D147 ialah perayu mengalami psikosis akibat penyalahgunaan dadah methamphetamine dan dadah heroin iaitu “Brief Psychotic Disorder secondary to Methamphetamine, Polysubstance (Methamphetamine/Amphetamine, Opiod) Use Disorder on Methadone Maintenance therapy”. [30] Menurut SD2, perayu berpotensi tinggi untuk mengalami psikosis semula kerana beliau kerap mengambil dadah methamphetamine dan jika perayu mengalami psikosis, ia boleh menjadi teruk dan berpanjangan. Seterusnya, SD2 juga menyatakan, oleh kerana perayu tidak lagi mendapatkan rawatan di HKL, maka jika berlaku psikosis mungkin tiada ubat untuk merawat beliau. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [31] Di akhir kes pembelaan, Hakim Bicara mendapati pembelaan perayu gagal menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah kepada kes pendakwaan atas alasan-alasan berikut: (i) Perayu adalah seorang yang waras, tidak mengalami masaalah mental dan tidak mengalami sebarang gejala psikosis berasaskan laporan perubatan daripada Dr. Suaran Singh a/l Jasmit Singh iaitu Pakar Perunding Psikiatri, Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta yang memeriksa perayu pada 14.12.2016. (ii) Kali terakhir SD2 memeriksa perayu ialah pada 25.2.2016. Kejadian kes ini berlaku 10 bulan kemudian iaitu pada 1.12.2016. Oleh itu, keterangan SD2 dan pendapat beliau dalam laporan D147 bahawa perayu mengalami psikosis akibat pengambilan dadah jenis methamphetamine dan heroin adalah terhad setakat 25.2.2016 dan tidak boleh menjadi bukti konklusif yang boleh diterima oleh mahkamah sebagai asas kepada legal insanity. (iii) Berasaskan laporan perubatan D146 yang disediakan oleh Dr. Suaran Singh, perayu tidak mengalami gejala psikosis dan hanya mempunyai masalah kebergantungan kepada dadah. Oleh itu, perayu bukan seorang yang “medically insane” sewaktu diperiksa oleh Dr. Suaran Singh. (iv) Tembakan perayu kepada semua mangsa adalah “focus attack” dan bukannya secara rambang seperti perbuatan orang yang hilang akal atau tidak waras. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (v) Perayu gagal membuktikan semasa beliau menembak kesemua mangsa, beliau tidak waras atau hilang akal. Perayu juga gagal membuktikan bahawa beliau tidak tahu perbuatannya menembak mangsa adalah salah atau menyalahi undang-undang. Oleh itu, legal insanity juga gagal dibuktikan. (vi) Pembelaan kemabukan dadah tidak pernah dibangkitkan semasa kes pendakwaan. Pembelaan ini hanya dihujahkan di akhir kes pembelaan. Maka, kemabukan dadah adalah pembelaan yang difikirkan kemudian dan bukanlah suatu pembelaan yang baik. Alasan-Alasan Rayuan [32] Perayu membangkitkan 4 isu berikut: (i) Sama ada Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan pembelaan kemabukan dadah tidak pernah ditimbulkan semasa kes pendakwaan. (ii) Sama ada Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan methadone mengurangkan pengambilan dadah methamphetamine oleh perayu dan memulihkan psikosis perayu. (iii) Sama ada Hakim Bicara betul dalam menilai keterangan mengenai pembelaan “medical insanity” dan “legal insanity”. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (iv) Sama ada Hakim Bicara betul dalam memutuskan tembakan adalah “focus attack” dan bukan secara rambang. Isu Kemabukan Dadah [33] Di para [98] alasan penghakiman beliau (Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1, ms 103), Hakim Bicara memutuskan kemabukan dadah tidak pernah dibangkitkan semasa kes pendakwaan. [34] Di hadapan kami, peguam perayu menghujahkan bahawa pembelaan kemabukan dadah ada dibangkitkansemasa kes pendakwaan. Peguam merujukkan kami kepada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan iaitu SP3, SP29 dan SP38 semasa di soal balas. [35] Kami mulakan dengan keterangan ahli kimia SP29. SP29 telah menjalankan ujian darah ke atas kesemua manga tembakan termasuk perayu. Saksi ini juga telah menyediakan satu laporan berasingan bagi setiap individu. Eksibit P12 adalah laporan ujian darah perayu. Ketika disoalbalas, SP29 setuju dalam P129, beliau menyatakan darah perayu mengandungi methadone. Menurut SP29, methadone adalah sejenis bahan yang digunakan dalam rawatan terapi untuk ketagihan heroin. Oleh itu, SP29 bersetuju ada kemungkinan perayu adalah penagih dadah. [36] Dato’ Dr. Zahari bin Noor (SP3) adalah seorang pakar perubatan. SP3 telah disoalbalas mengenai kesan kehadiran methadone dalam darah. Saksi ini setuju bahawa methadone adalah rawatan untuk heroin sahaja. Manakala bagi dadah methamphetamine, tiada rawatan seperti methadone. Saksi ini juga setuju ujian darah boleh mengesahkan sama ada seseorang itu di bawah rawatan methadone atau pun tidak. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [37] Pegawai penyiasat kes, ASP Azmirul bin Abdul Aziz (SP38) telah disoalbalas mengenai ketidaksempurnaan akal perayu dengan merujuk kepada laporan perubatan D146, D147, D149, D150 dan D151A. SP38 telah disoalbalas seperti berikut: S: Sebagai pegawai penyiasat, setuju dengan saya berasaskan dokumen D147, nampaknya OKT juga merupakan seorang pengguna dadah jenis methamphetamine atau Amphetamine? J: Setuju S: Rujuk ayat terakhir, doktor mengesahkan OKT ada peristiwa silam halusinasi suara dan penglihatan? J: Benar S: M/S 2 bahagian bawah, setuju rawatan adalah Stimulant Induced Psychotic Disorder; Amphetamine type stimulant? J: Ada S: Setuju daripada dokumentasi hospital, walaupun kamu ada pengetahuan bahawa OKT ada masalah mental khususnya halusinasi, tetapi kamu tidak membuat apa-apa siasatan berkenaan masalah mental ini secara teliti? J: Saya hanya berpandukan laporan s.342 CPC yang dihantar oleh Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta Perak. S: Setuju dengan saya, daripada dokumen, kamu boleh sahkan OKT pernah ada masaalah mental? J: Setuju [38] Daripada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan SP3, SP29 dan SP38, jelas kepada kami bahawa dari peringkat kes pendakwaan lagi, perayu telah membangkitkan pembelaan bahawa beliau adalah pengguna aktif dadah jenis methamphetamine/amphetamine dan dadah heroin. Akibat daripada pengambilan dadah-dadah ini, beliau mengalami S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 psikosis iaitu halusinasi suara dan Lembaga (auditory and visual hallucination) hingga hilang akal, agresif dan tidak ingat apa yang berlaku. [39] Apabila Hakim Bicara menyatakan kemabukan dadah tidak pernah ditimbulkan semasa kes pendakwaan, ia membawa kesimpulan bahawa Hakim Bicara telah gagal mematuhi seksyen 182A(1) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dalam menilai keseluruhan kes pendakwaan. Dengan menafikan pembelaan kemabukan dadah, Hakim Bicara telah melakukan salah arah yang serius yang menyebabkan berlakunya salah laksana keadilan (miscarriage of justice) dalam mensabitkan perayu kerana keterangan kemabukan dadah telah tidak dipertimbangkan oleh Hakim Bicara. [40] Atas fakta dan keadaan kes ini, kami bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam perayu bahawa dapatan Hakim Bicara bahawa pembelaan kemabukan dadah adalah pembelaan yang difikirkan kemudian adalah satu dapatan yang salah, yang bertentangan dengan keterangan yang ada di hadapan mahkamah. Isu Methadone Memulihkan Psikosis Perayu [41] Di para [104] Alasan Penghakiman (Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1 ms 108, Hakim Bicara membuat dapatan fakta berikut: “... Sebaliknya OKT dalam kes ini tidak mengambil sebarang dadah pada masa kejadian dan hanya mengambil methadone yang disahkan oleh SD2 berkesan untuk mengurangkan pengambilan dadah ice (methamphetamine) kepada OKT sekaligus memulihkan psikosis yang dialami oleh OKT.” S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [42] Komplen perayu terhadap penemuan fakta Hakim Bicara itu ialah SD2 tidak pernah memberi keterangan bahawa methadone berkesan untuk mengurangkan pengambilan dadah ice (methamphetamine) dan sekali gus memulihkan psikosis yang dialami oleh perayu. [43] Sebaliknya, pakar perubatan, SP3 menyatakan methadone adalah ubat gantian untuk dadah heroin dan tiada ubat gantian untuk dadah jenis methamphetamine. [44] Keterangan SD2 ialah jika perayu mengalami psikosis lagi, tidak ada ubat untuk merawat perayu kerana beliau tidak lagi mendapatkan rawatan susulan di HKL. [45] Kesimpulan yang boleh dibuat dari keterangan SP3 dan SD2 ialah tidak ada ubat untuk merawat atau mengurangkan pengambilan dadah methamphetamine. Juga tidak ada ubat untuk memulihkan psikosis perayu. Methadone hanyalah ubat gantian untuk merawat ketagihan dadah heroin sahaja. Ini bermakna, dapatan Hakim Bicara bahawa methadone berkesan mengurangkan pengambilan dadah methamphetamine dan memulihkan psikosis perayu tidak disokong oleh keterangan dan adalah satu dapatan yang salah. Realitinya ialah perayu belum pulih dari psikosis. Beliau mengalami psikosis pada 1.12.2016. [46] Kesan dari kekhilafan ini, Hakim Bicara telah menyimpulkan bahawa perbuatan perayu melepaskan tembakan terhadap kesemua mangsa adalah dibuat dengan niat. Pada pendapat kami Ini adalah salah arah yang serius yang telah menyebabkan berlakunya ketidakadilan kepada perayu. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Isu Medical Insanity Dan Legal Insanity [47] Perbezaan di antara legal insanity dan medical insanity telah dijelaskan oleh pengarang Buku Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes 26 th edn di m.s 307 seperti berikut: “Medical insanity” and “legal insanity” - There is a good deal of difference between “medical insanity” and “legal insanity” and courts are concerned only with the legal and not the medical of the matter. It is not every kind of frantic humour or something unaccountable in a men’s action, that points him out to be a mad man, to be excepted from punishment, It is not mere eccentricity or singularity of manner that would suffice the plea of insanity. Abnormality of mind is not by itself sufficient to show that the accused must have acted while of unsound mind. Such exemption can be claimed only when the insane person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or he is doing either wrong or contrary to law.” [48] Dalam kes John Nyumbei v PP [2007] 2 CL J 509, Abdul Hamid Embong, HMR (beliau pada ketika itu) telah membuat dapatan fakta mengenai pembelaan Insanity seperti berikut: “10. The law on unsoundness of mind as a complete defence in our criminal jurisprudence is, as was correctly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, contained in s.84 of the Penal Code. It states: 84. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 12. Thus, under s.84 Penal Code, criminality has to be determined according to that legal test and not merely by the mental state of an accused person according to the medical test. 14. When the defence of insanity is raised, the court thus needs to consider two matters, namely: (i) whether the accused person has successfully established, as a preliminary issue, that at the time of committing the act he was of unsound mind, and (ii) if he was of unsound mind, whether he has proven that his unsoundness of mind was a degree to satisfy one of the tests earlier mentioned ie, that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act as being wrong or against the law. (see Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes, 5th edn, p 289 et seq). 16. The standard of proof upon the accused raising the defence of insanity is on the balance of probabilities, as in a civil case (Rajagopal v PP [1976] 1 LNS 122; [1977] 1 ML J 6; Goh Yoke v PP [1969] 1 LNS 48; [1970] 1 ML J 63). So, if the appellant here is able to show, either from the prosecution or other evidence that he committed the crime but was at that time insane, he cannot be culpable by virtue of s.84 Penal Code.” [49] Dalam kes ini, perayu mengatakan beliau tidak ingat apa yang berlaku. Beliau hanya tersedar apabila mendengar arahan supaya meletakkan senjata. [50] Tidak ada penjelasan kenapa beliau tidak ingat. Keterangan yang ada ialah beliau mengalami psikosis, mendengar bisikan suara dan S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 nampak lembaga hitam di sebelahnya. SP37 telah memberi keterangan bahawa beliau mendengar perayu “chanting” 2 - 3 minit sebelum mendengar bunyi tembakan. Tingkah laku perayu “chanting” menunjukkan perayu ada legal insanity. Perayu secara tiba-tiba tanpa sebab bertindak agresif menembak orang-orang yang tidak dikenali (kecuali OTK) yang melepasi kereta BMW. Masaalah psikosis ini pernah berlaku semasa perayu dirawat di HKL pada 22.6.2015. Laporan perubatan HKL berkaitan rawatan pada 22.6.2015 terkandung dalam eksibit D151A. [51] Dalam laporan HKL, eksibit D151A, perayu juga didapati mengambil dadah methamphetamine dan ubat methadone pada masa tersebut. Tetapi, perayu bertindak agresif dan destruktif. Semasa di wad psikiatri, kaki dan tangan perayu terpaksa diikat oleh kakitangan HKL. Dalam D151A, doktor yang membuat pemeriksaan fizikal terhadap perayu pada 22.6.2015 menulis: “…There was the presence of visual and auditory hallucinations and persecutory delusions at the time.” Seterusnya, doktor tersebut membuat diagnosa berikut: “stimulant induced psychotic disorder (amphetamine type stimulant) with stimulant use disorder.” [52] Maka, psikosis yang dialami perayu pada 1.12.2016 adalah psikosis yang berulang. SD2 telah memberi keterangan bahawa pengambilan dadah methamphetamine memberi kesan fizikal dan mental kepada pengambilnya. SD2 juga telah memberi keterangan bahawa jika perayu mengalami psikosis berulang, psikosis beliau akan menjadi lebih teruk. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [53] Walaupun Hakim Bicara nampaknya menerima fakta bahawa perayu mengalami psikosis, tetapi Hakim Bicara memilih untuk menerima laporan perubatan D146 yang disediakan oleh Dr. Suaran Singh sebagai laporan yang tepat mengenai keadaan mental perayu. Hakim Bicara dipengaruhi oleh faktor bahawa Dr. Suaran Singh memeriksa perayu pada 14.12.2016, 2 minggu selepas kejadian tembakan sebagai laporan yang lebih tepat berbanding pemeriksaan terakhir SD2 ke atas perayu pada Februari 2016. [54] Pada pendapat kami, tujuan laporan D146 itu disediakan adalah untuk menentukan sama ada perayu layak (fit) untuk dibicarakan. Dr. Suaran Singh tidak dapat dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan kerana sapina tidak dapat diserahkan kepada beliau. Fakta menunjukkan Dr. Suaran Singh telah bersara dan beliau tidak dapat dihubungi. Tetapi, seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan menghendaki perayu membuktikan beliau hilang akal pada masa kesalahan dilakukan. Oleh itu, bagi maksud seksyen 84 KK, isu yang perlu diputuskan oleh mahkamah ialah sama ada perayu hilang akal pada 1.12.2016. [55] Kami mendapati Hakim Bicara tidak mengambilkira keterangan perayu yang disokong oleh keterangan SP37 iaitu perayu membaca ayat kursi dan chanting untuk menenangkan hatinya semasa mengalami halusinasi suara dan lembaga hitam. Selepas itu, perayu bertindak agresif menembak mangsa. Kelakuan agresif perayu ini adalah konsisten dengan tingkah laku agresif beliau terhadap pesakit-pesakit lain semasa berada di wad psikiatri HKL dan juga semasa berada di wad Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta pada 14.12.2016. Tingkahlaku perayu pada masa kejadian 1.12.2016 itu jelas menunjukkan perayu hilang akal dan tidak tahu apa yang dilakukannya. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [56] Pada pendapat kami, pembelaan perayu bahawa beliau hilang akal akibat pengambilan dadah methamphetamine dan mengalami halusinasi suara dan lembaga yang menyebabkan beliau bertindak agresif tanpa sedar disokong oleh laporan perubatan D147 dan D151A. Pembelaan perayu ini menunjukkan beliau tiada niat untuk membunuh 3 mangsa dan cuba membunuh 5 mangsa. Isu Tembakan Rambang [57] Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Bicara menyatakan tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan perayu telah melepaskan tembakan secara rambang. [58] Sebaliknya, kami mendapati keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan iaitu SP9, SP11 dan SP18 menunjukkan keadaan yang berlaku adalah sebaliknya. [59] SP9 telah memberi keterangan berikut semasa disoalbalas: S: Memandangkan kamu ada lihat dia, setuju dengan saya dia lepaskan tembakan tidak tentu hala? J: Setuju. [60] SP11 pula memberi keterangan berikut. Beliau sedang menunggang motosikal bila ditembak oleh perayu. Beliau berada dalam jarak antara 8 - 9 kaki dari perayu. Beliau lari bersembunyi di belakang pokok. Beliau nampak perayu berlegar-legar di atas jalanraya dan melepaskan tembakan. Kepada SP11, tingkahlaku perayu adalah seperti orang gila. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [61] SP18 yang menunggang motosikal telah ditembak di bahagian dada. Selepas terkena tembak, SP18 nampak perayu melepaskan beberapa das tembakan ke atas. [62] Keterangan SP9, SP11 dan SP18 menunjukkan perayu melepaskan tembakan secara rambang dan tidak tentu hala. [63] Mengambilkira keterangan SP9, SP11 dan SP18, kami mendapati dapatan Hakim Bicara bahawa tembakan dibuat secara focus attack dan bukan secara rambang adalah tidak tepat dan tidak disokong oleh keterangan. Keputusan Kami [64] Setelah meneliti kes pembelaan, kami mendapati perayu telah berjaya membuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa beliau mengalami sakit otak (legal insanity) pada masa kejadian sebagaimana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan di mana ia tidak terjumlah kepada satu kesalahan jenayah. [65] Menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah seksyen 347 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, Mahkamah ini membebas dan melepaskan perayu kerana beliau melakukan kesalahan semasa hilang akal dan tidak mengetahui perbuatan beliau adalah salah atau menyalahi undang-undang (legal insanity). [66] Selanjutnya, menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah seksyen 348 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, Mahkamah ini memerintahkan perayu dihantar ke Hospital Mental di Perak atau di Johor mengikut kesesuaian dan S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Mahkamah akan menyediakan laporan kepada Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang DiPertuan Agong bagi perkenan Tuanku di bawah seksyen 348(2) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. [67] Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman dibenarkan. Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi atas sabitan dan hukuman diketepikan. Bertarikh: 4 Januari 2024 - sgd - Hadhariah binti Syed Ismail Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Bagi Perayu : Encik Anbanathan a/l Yathiraju; Tetuan Anba & Associates. Bagi Responden : TPR Puan How May Ling; Jabatan Peguam Negara. S/N eVR1GITrVEqh0ZLYuyY5Qw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24C-81-05/2023

PEMOHON EMBITION SDN BHD RESPONDEN KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD

Enclosure 1. Originating Summons No. WA-24C-81-05/2023 (“OS 81”) is Embition’s application to set aside the AD under section 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)

09/01/2024

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9773726c-4b29-49ae-8d96-3e4899cc8f16&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAHKAMAH PEMBINAAN) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-80-05/2023 Dalam perkara Adjudikasi No.: AIAC/D/ADJ-4596-2023 antara Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd (Penuntut) dan Embition Sdn Bhd (Responden); Dan Dalam perkara Keputusan Adjudikasi bertarikh 15.05.2023 oleh Shamsul Bahrin Bin Abdul Manaf’ Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 15 Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan 2012 (“CIPAA”); Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 16 Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan 2012 (“CIPAA”); Dan 09/01/2024 16:43:32 WA-24C-81-05/2023 Kand. 25 S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dalam perkara Aturan 69A dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan dalam bidang kuasa Mahkamah yang Mulia ini ANTARA EMBITION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1082956-X) …PEMOHON DAN KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 756027-X) …RESPONDEN Di Dengar Bersama Dengan DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAHKAMAH PEMBINAAN) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-81-05/2023 Dalam perkara Adjudikasi No.: AIAC/D/ADJ-4596-2023 antara Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd (Penuntut) dan Embition Sdn Bhd (Responden); S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Dan Dalam perkara Keputusan Adjudikasi bertarikh 15.05.2023 oleh Shamsul Bahrin Bin Abdul Manaf; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 15 Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan 2012 (“CIPAA”); Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 69A dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan dalam bidang kuasa Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini ANTARA EMBITION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1082956-X) …PEMOHON DAN KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 756027-X) …DEFENDAN Di Dengar Bersama Dengan S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAHKAMAH PEMBINAAN) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24C-91-06/2023 Dalam perkara Adjudikasi antara Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd (Pihak Menuntut) dan Embition Sdn Bhd (Pihak Responden) Dan Dalam perkara Adjudikasi di hadapan Shamsul Bahrin Bin Abdul Manaf; Dan Dalam perkara Keputusan Adjudikasi bertarikh 15-5-2023; Dan Dalam perkara seksyen 28 Akta Pembayaran dan Adjudikasi Industri Pembinaan, 2012 Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 7, Aturan 28, dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah, 2012 dan S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Aturan 69A Kaedah 5 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah (Pindaan) 2018 ANTARA KONSORTIUM EXPRESS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1082956-X) …PLAINTIFF DAN EMBITION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1082956-X) …DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) [1] Originating Summons No. WA-24C-80-05/2023 (“OS 80”) is an Application for a Stay of the Adjudication Decision dated 15.3.2023 (“AD”) by Embition Sdn Bhd (“Embition”) pursuant to section 16 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and pending the disposal of the Arbitration proceedings between the parties. [2] Originating Summons No. WA-24C-81-05/2023 (“OS 81”) is Embition’s application to set aside the AD under section 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”), whilst Originating Summons No. WA-24C-91-06/2023 (“OS 91”) is Konsortium Express Sdn Bhd’s (“KESB”) application to enforce the AD under section 28 CIPAA. S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Brief Background Facts [3] By a Letter of Award dated 13.06.20185, Embition appointed KESB to carry out infrastructure works for a project known as Construction and Completion of Infrastructure Works for Cadangan Pembangunan (Guarded Community) Perumahan Rumah Sesebuah diatas Lot 424, Mukim Ulu Kelang, Selangor Darul Ehsan untuk Tetuan Twin Ridge Sdn. Bhd. (“the Works”) for a contract sum of RM22,000,000.00. [4] This Letter of Award was issued by Messrs. KSKA Arkitek Sdn Bhd on behalf of Embition. The said Messrs. KSKA Arkitek Sdn Bhd is also designated as the Architect (“the Architect”) for the Works. [5] Apart from the terms in the Letter of Award, the parties agreed that the contract would be in the PAM Contract (Without Quantities) form 6 (collectively referred to as “the Contract”). [6] KESB claimed that KESB had carried out the Works under the Contract and thus states that it is entitled to issue Progress Claim No. 20 for the Works said to be done totalling RM1,347,044.94 to the Architect on 19.09.2022 and the Architect has issued the Interim Progress Certificate No. 20 (“IPC 20”) on 20.09.2022 for the said sum. [7] The issue that arose is in relation to the payment for IPC 20 which was allegedly not made by Embition on or before 20.10.2022. [8] KESB subsequently served a Payment Claim dated 27.12.2022 on Embition for a sum of RM1,347,044.94 and Embition served the S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Payment Response dated 06.01.2023 on KESB disputing the amount of RM1,279,425.69. Court’s Analysis & Findings [9] Under OS 81, Embition had in essence submitted that: (i) the Adjudicator had failed to call for an oral hearing. (ii) Embition had not been given the opportunity to submit on Progress Certificate no. 20 certified by the Architect. (iii) KESB used the CIPAA process to stave off the Arbitration that was initiated by Embition against KESB. Oral Hearing [10] On the issue of the oral hearing which learned counsel for Embition had submitted that the Adjudicator did not address; I have found that the Adjudicator did address the same at paragraph 28 of the AD where he found upon perusal of the cause papers and documents before him that there was no necessity to hold an oral hearing. [11] I hold that the decision of the Adjudicator on this issue should not and cannot be questioned once he has given his reasons for doing so after the Adjudicator had considered the relevant documents and evidence before him. It is completely within the Adjudicator’s discretion to determine the conduct of the Adjudication including whether he should hold an oral hearing. S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [12] The Court will not interfere once the Adjudicator has given his reasons for allowing or disallowing the oral hearing, see Mamoth Empire Construction Sdn Bhd v Stam Engineering Sdn Bhd & anor case [2019] 3 CLJ 718 and Martego Sdn Bhd v Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and Anor appeal [2018] 4 MLJ 496. [13] For the record, I have considered the cases relied on by learned counsel for Embition to support its contention that natural justice has been denied to them due to the lack of a fair hearing. [14] Although this Court totally agrees with and supports the legal principles therein, I find that the respective Adjudication Decisions in the said cases were set aside on facts which are quite different and which can thus be distinguished with the case before me. [15] Firstly, on Guangxi Dev & Cap Sdn Bhd v Sycal Bhd & Anor Appeal [2019] 6 MLRA case referred by counsel for Embition, the Adjudication Decision therein was amongst others allowed to be set aside not because no oral hearing was allowed but due to a preliminary report submitted by the Respondent therein which the Adjudicator failed to consider; whilst in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v NS Bluescope Lysaght Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2015] MLRHU 1018, the Adjudication Decision therein was set aside due to inter alia a unilateral communication between the Adjudicator and one of the parties, for which the Court held that there was occasioned a breach of natural justice. S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [16] Accordingly, I will not, with respect, be able to rely on the said cases to support learned counsel for Embition’s contention that natural justice has been denied to them due to the lack of a fair hearing. Progress Certificate No 20 & Failure to Call Architect & The Opportunity to Submit on The Same [17] In relation to the issue of Progress Certificate No. 20 certified by the Architect, I find that the Adjudicator had addressed and considered this in the AD and after going through the documents before him, the Adjudicator had inter alia found that: 17.1 Progress Claim no. 20 was submitted to the Architect and he had thereafter issued Progress Certificate no. 20 certifying the same. 17.2 Embition did not dispute the correctness of Progress Certificate no. 20. 17.3 referred to clauses 15.1 and 15.4 of the Letter of Award 17.4 there was compliance with the abovementioned clauses by KESB. 17.5 the Architect had acted on behalf of Embition and it was not open to Embition to distance itself from the certification by the Architect. 17.6 Embition cannot use the excuse that Progress Certificate no. 20 was wrongly certified to avoid paying KESB. [18] In this respect, I have noted that learned counsel for Embition has contended amongst others that the Adjudicator should have called the Architect to explain and referred to several case laws which show S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 that the Architect when certifying is independent and cannot be imputed on parties. It was thus submitted that the Adjudicator had erroneously made a finding of fact/law on who the Architect is acting for, which is contrary to clause 11.1.c of the LA. [19] With respect, I agree with learned counsel for KESB that Embition ought to have raised all its defences with regards the said Progress Certificate No. 20 and/or the issues against the Architect for issuing the same and that Embition’s failure to do so was on its own peril and cannot be faulted on the Adjudicator. [20] Be that as it may, after considering Embition’s contentions and after going through the AD as mentioned above, I hold that the Adjudicator had identified, considered and analyzed the relevant documents and had asked himself the rights questions on this issue including in particular, but not limited to, Embition’s allegations that all variation works are subject to Embition’s approval and his decision thereafter that it was “..not open for the Respondent to distant itself from the certification by the Architect….”. [21] It was only after such analysis that the Adjudicator had come to his decision on the same. Whether his answer is one which is right or wrong is something which this Court will not interfere as that would be going into the merits of the matter which, according to settled law, this Court cannot do in an application to set aside the AD under section 15 CIPAA. Stay Application Under OS 80 S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [22] I have consequently considered OS 80, which is the Stay Application pursuant to section 16 of the Arbitration Act 2005 on the ground of that the AD should be stayed pending the disposal of the Arbitration proceedings. [23] It is trite that the fact there is an arbitration proceeding between the parties does not automatically mean that there is to be a stay of the AD, and that both the Adjudication proceedings and the Arbitration proceedings can exists independently. I quote and rely on the Federal Court’s decision in Martego Sdn Bhd v Arkitek Meor & Chew Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2019] MLJU 742 where the Court had stated: “[76] …We are fully in agreement with the learned High Court Judge that there is nothing to stop CIPAA 2012 from applying to the case at hand and there is no need to see adjudication and arbitration to be mutually exclusive to each other. …..” and quoting and adopting what the learned High Court Judge in the matter below had stated on the matter which was as follows: “… After the introduction of Adjudication, both Arbitration and Litigation will still continue except that now there is an additional dispute resolution mechanism of temporary finality that can be embarked upon before or concurrently with Arbitration or Litigation as the case may be. Thus, one need not have to choose in an “either or” approach between Adjudication and Arbitration but one can proceed in a “both and” approach in resolving a dispute on an architect’s claim against his client for his professional fees. Adjudication under CIPAA was never designed to be in conflict with Arbitration and Litigation and so its process may be activated at any time where there is a valid payment claim under a construction S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 contract. Premised on that proper perspective, the question of which would prevail over the other does not arise at all.” (emphasis added)” [24] I further find that the test of exceptional circumstances to justify a stay application has not been proven to the satisfaction of this Court. Justice Mary Lim (now FCJ) had in Subang Skypark Sdn Bhd v Arcradius Sdn Bhd [2015] 11 MLJ 818 that a stay should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and wherein Her Ladyship stated as follows: - “[32] It is my further view that stay should only be granted in exceptional circumstances; and such circumstances must necessarily refer to the financial status of the other party. The merits of the case before the arbitration or the court; or even the chances of success in setting aside the adjudication decision are not relevant considerations. The grant of any stay must always weigh in the primary object of the CIPAA 2012; that it is to ensure a speedy resolution of a payment dispute; that it is to inject much needed cashflow into the contractual arrangements between parties that saw progressive payments of claims as the recognised and accepted way of doing business in construction contracts. It would be futile to encourage parties to resort to adjudication and then deprive a successful claimant of its claim by staying the access to the cash simply because there is another proceeding of the nature described in sub-s 16(1) which is pending. The whole concept of temporary finality would be lost and the object of the Act defeated if such was the consideration.” [25] Thus, based on the above tests and the same grounds I have afore mentioned for this Court in dismissing the Setting Aside of the AD herein, I dismiss the said Stay Application under OS 80. S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Enforcement of AD [26] Since this Court has dismissed the application for Setting Aside of the AD, and there is to date no payment of the same from Embition to KESB’ I hold that there is nothing to prevent the AD from being enforced pursuant to section 28 of CIPAA. Decision [27] Wherefore I hereby dismiss with costs OS 81 and OS 80 with costs. I will in the circumstances allow and grant Order In Terms for prayers A, B (i) (ii) and (iii) and C in enclosure 1 of OS 91. Dated: 20th day of October 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: K. Selva Kumaran [Messrs Rose Hussin] COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: Dinesh Nandrajog [Messrs Nandrajog] S/N bHJzlylLrkmNlj5ImcyPFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

P-05(SH)-452-12/2020

PERAYU Ja'afar Bin Halid RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Rayuan Jenayah - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman Mahkamah Tinggi - 3 pertuduhan membunuh di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan 5 pertuduhan cubaan membunuh di bawah seksyen 307 Kanun yang sama - Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan: (1) Bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah seksven 302 Kanun Keseksaan, perayu dijatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati; (2) Bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 307 Kanun Keseksaan, perayu dikenakan bukuman penjara 15 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan hukuman berjalan serentak - Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan: (1) Perayu telah berjaya membuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa beliau mengalami sakit otak (legal insanity) pada masa kejadian sebagaimana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan di mana ia tidak terjumlah kepada satu kesalahan jenayah; (2) Menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah seksyen 347 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, Mahkamah Rayuan membebas dan melepaskan perayu kerana beliau melakukan kesalahan semasa hilang akal dan tidak mengetahui perbuatan beliau adalah salah atau menyalahi undang-undang (legal insanity); (3) Menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah seksyen 348 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, perayu dihantar ke Hospital Mental di Perak atau di Johor mengikut kesesuaian dan Mahkamah akan menyediakan laporan kepada Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang DiPertuan Agong bagi perkenan Tuanku di bawah seksyen 348(2) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah; (4) Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman dibenarkan; (5) Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi atas sabitan dan hukuman diketepikan.

09/01/2024

YA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin AbdullahYA Dato' S.M. Komathy A/P Suppiah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=71dc510a-f3ac-40a7-bd9d-06deff500931&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO.P-05 (M)-443-12/2020, P-05(SH)-451-12/2020 DAN P-05 (SH)-452-12/2020 DI ANTARA JAAFAR BIN HALID - PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA - RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang Perbicaraan Jenayah No.45B-12-09/2017, 45B-13-09/2017 dan 45B-14-09/2017 Pendakwa Raya Lawan Jaafar bin Halid] KORAM: HADHARIAH BINTI SYED ISMAIL, HMR HAJI AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, HMR S.M KOMATHY SUPPIAH, HMR 09/01/2024 09:08:06 P-05(SH)-452-12/2020 Kand. 60 S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 PENGHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH Pengenalan [1] Perayu dalam ketiga-tiga rayuan ini adalah Jaafar bin Halid. Pada 1.12.2016, jam lebih kurang 7.15 petang hingga 7.30 malam, bertempat di jalan susur masuk ke Jambatan Pertama Pulau Pinang, Lebuh Raya Tun Dr. Lim Chong Eu, Georgetown, Pulau Pinang, dengan menggunakan sepucuk senjata api jenis Glock 19 Gen 4 No. Siri ABFR 017, perayu telah menembak 8 orang mangsa. Daripada 8 mangsa itu, tiga telah terbunuh dan 5 lagi mengalami kecederaan. [2] Lapan pertuduhan dikenakan terhadap perayu iaitu 3 pertuduhan membunuh di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan 5 pertuduhan cubaan membunuh di bawah seksyen 307 Kanun yang sama. Rayuan No.443 [3] Selepas satu perbicaaran penuh, pada 16.12.2020, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang telah mensabitkan perayu bersalah bagi tiga kesalahan membunuh tiga mangsa berikut: (i) Ong Teik Kwong (OTK) dengan cara menembak di bahagian belakang kepala. Pada hari kejadian berlaku, perayu adalah pengawal peribadi (bodyguard) OTK. OTK berada ditempat duduk pemandu kereta BMW No. PMF 11 semasa beliau ditembak oleh perayu. Perayu pula berada di tempat duduk belakang kereta. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (ii) Choi Hon Ming (CHM) dengan cara menembak di bahagian dada dan peha kanan. CHM berada di dalam kereta melalui jalan yang sama bila beliau ditembak; dan (iii) Senthil Murugiah (SM) dengan cara menembak di bahagian dada kiri. SM menunggang motosikal melalui jalan yang sama bila beliau ditembak. [4] Bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan, perayu dijatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati. Rayuan No. 451 Dan 452 [5] Pada 16.12.2020, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang juga mensabitkan perayu bersalah atas lima kesalahan cuba membunuh lima mangsa berikut: (i) Arivarni a/p Krishnan dengan cara menembak di kepala. Pada masa kejadian, mangsa sedang memandu kereta melalui jalan yang sama. (ii) Nurul Huda binti Ab Aziz dengan cara menembak di bahu. Pada masa kejadian, mangsa sedang memandu kereta bersama 4 orang anaknya, melalui jalan yang sama. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (iii) Lee Hong Boon dengan cara menembak di dada kiri. Mangsa sedang menunggang motosikal semasa beliau ditembak. (iv) Mohamad Amirul Amin bin Mohamed Amer dengan cara menembak di dada sebelah kiri. Mangsa telah memberhentikan motosikal untuk melihat dan membantu mangsa yang cedera apabila beliau ditembak oleh perayu. (v) Puoh Bee Joo dengan cara menembak di bahu. Mangsa sedang memandu kereta semasa beliau ditembak. [6] Bagi setiap pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 307 Kanun Keseksaan, perayu telah dikenakan hukuman penjara 15 tahun dari tarikh tangkap dan hukuman berjalan serentak. [7] Perayu merayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman bagi kesemua lapan pertuduhan. [8] Di peringkat kes pendakwaan, perbuatan menembak 8 orang mangsa (actus reus) diakui oleh perayu. Perayu menafikan beliau ada niat (mens rea) untuk membunuh atau cuba membunuh. Pembelaan perayu ialah beliau mengalami sakit otak (legal insanity) dan tidak sedar apa yang berlaku pada masa kejadian. Kes Pendakwaan [9] Pada 1.12.2016 jam lebih kurang 7.26 petang, semasa Kpl Faizal bin Hamdan sedang bertugas di Bilik Kawalan IPK Pulau Pinang, beliau telah menerima panggilan telefon daripada satu lelaki Melayu bernama S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Azizan memaklumkan mengenai kejadian tembakan di susur jalan sebelum naik ke Jambatan Pertama Pulau Pinang, Lebuhraya Tun Dr. Lim Chong Eu dan telah memaklumkan kejadian itu kepada pihak DCC Timur Laut sepertimana dalam laporan polis Jelutong 7799/16. [10] Seorang anggota polis peronda, Kpl Azlan Shah (SP30) yang telah menerima maklumat tersebut terus menghala ke tempat kejadian. [11] Sampai di tempat kejadian, SP30 melihat berlaku kemalangan yang melibatkan beberapa buah kenderaan. SP30 nampak satu lelaki di sebelah kiri bahu jalan dalam keadaan berlumuran darah dan ketakutan sambil memerhatikan kereta BMW dengan nombor pendaftaran PMF 11 (kereta BMW). [12] Kemudian, SP30 melihat perayu datang dari pintu hadapan sebelah kiri kereta BMW. Pada ketika itu, perayu dilihat sedang menyelitkan pistol di bahagian belakang pinggangnya sebelah kanan. SP30 juga melihat seorang lelaki yang dalam keadaan berlumuran darah di kepala sedang berada di bahagian tempat duduk pemandu kereta BMW tersebut. [13] SP30 telah menghampiri perayu. Pada ketika itu, perayu sedang memegang bahagian pinggangnya seolah-olah ingin mengambil pistol. SP30 telah memberi amaran dan mengarahkan perayu meletakkan pistol dan merebahkan badan, namun perayu enggan memberikan kerjasama. Selepas itu, perayu dilihat telah mencekah pistol, mengeluarkan kelopak peluru dan meletakkan pistol itu di atas tanah. SP30 seterusnya mengarahkan perayu merebahkan badan, tetapi perayu enggan memberikan kerjasama. SP30 kemudiannya menerpa ke arah perayu dan dengan bantuan anggota lain, perayu berjaya ditangkap oleh SP30. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [14] Pegawai penyiasat kes, ASP Azmirul bin Abdul Aziz (SP38) mengesahkan bahawa perayu membawa bersamanya 2 magazine. Setiap satu magazine mengandungi 10 butir peluru. Ini bermakna perayu membawa 20 butir peluru. Hasil siasatan beliau, SP38 mendapati sejumlah 17 butir peluru telah dilepaskan oleh perayu. Tetapi, hanya 11 kelongsong peluru dijumpai di tempat kejadian. [15] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Hakim Bicara mendapati pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie bagi kesemua 8 pertuduhan. Hakim Bicara berpuashati bahawa perayu mempunyai niat untuk membunuh dan percubaan untuk membunuh atas dua alasan. Alasan pertama ialah perayu menggunakan senjata api (Tham Kai Yau & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1976] 1 LNS 159; Sainal Abidin bin Mading v PP [1999] 4 CL J 215). Alasan kedua ialah perayu menembak ketiga-tiga simati di bahagian penting badan iaitu di kepala dan dada. Tembakan di kepala menembusi otak. Tembakan di dada menembusi jantung. Dalam kedua-dua situasi, keterangan pakar perubatan (SP3) ialah mustahil untuk mangsa boleh hidup. Mengambilkira semua perkara ini, Hakim Bicara memutuskan perayu mempunyai niat untuk mendatangkan kecederaan yang pada lazimnya boleh membawa kepada kematian simati. [16] Bagi kesalahan percubaan membunuh 5 mangsa, Hakim Bicara mendapati perayu telah menembak mangsa-mangsa di bahagian kepala, dada dan bahu. Kecederaan kesemua mangsa adalah parah yang memerlukan pembedahan dan rawatan segera. Jika tidak, mereka juga akan menerima nasib yang sama seperti 3 mangsa yang meninggal dunia. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [17] Dengan terbuktinya kes prima facie, perayu dipanggil membela diri bagi kesemua 8 pertuduhan. Kes Pembelaan [18] Perayu mengambil dadah ganja sejak berumur 18 tahun. Pada umur 24 - 25 tahun, beliau mengambil dadah heroin. Pada usia awal 30 an, beliau mengambil dadah jenis syabu (methamphetamine). Semasa memberi keterangan di mahkamah pada tahun 2019, perayu berumur 40 tahun. Ketagihan perayu kepada dadah jenis heroin adalah teruk sehingga beliau terpaksa menjalani rawatan pengambilan ubat methadone. [19] Perayu diambil bekerja oleh Syarikat GMP Gaisa sebagai pengawal peribadi. Pada 30.11.2016, perayu telah ditugaskan untuk menjadi pengawal peribadi kepada Ong Teik Kwong yang dikenali oleh perayu sebagai Dato’ M. Perayu turut dibekalkan oleh majikannya dengan sepucuk pistol jenis Glock dan 20 butir peluru. [20] Sebelum kejadian tembakan berlaku, pada 1.12.2016, jam lebih kurang 7.00 pagi, OTK bersama rakan perniagaannya, Lim Boon Leng (SP37) dan perayu bertolak dari rumah OTK menuju ke Pulau Pinang dalam kereta BMW. Kereta BMW dipandu oleh OTK. SP37 duduk di tempat duduk penumpang hadapan. Perayu duduk di tempat duduk belakang OTK. Pada masa berkenaan, OTK dan SP37 ada pengetahuan bahawa perayu membawa senjata api bersama beliau. [21] Di Pulau Pinang, semasa OTK, SP37 dan perayu berada di Kafe Arabica, perayu melihat perbincangan antara OTK dengan kawannya S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 agak tegang. Disebabkan itu, perayu telah mengeluarkan pistol dan meletakkan di atas pehanya. Perbuatan perayu ditegur oleh OTK yang menyuruh perayu menyimpan semula pistolnya. Perayu menurut arahan OTK. [22] Semasa kereta BMW berada di atas lebuhraya menuju ke Jambatan Pertama Pulau Pinang, perayu merasa suhu badannya panas, jantung berdebar-debar dan mendengar suara bisikan di kiri kanan telinga dan ada kelibat hitam di sebelahnya. [23] Perayu cuba menenangkan fikirannya dengan membaca ayat kursi, tetapi bacaannya tidak lancar. Kemudian, perayu tidak ingat apa yang berlaku selepas itu. Beliau hanya tersedar apabila mendengar arahan SP30 supaya meletakkan pistol. Perayu menurut arahan polis dan meletakkan senjata. [24] Perayu tidak ingat sama sekali yang beliau telah menembak 8 orang mangsa. [25] Pada 21.6.2015, perayu didapati pengsan di masjid dan dibawa ke unit kecemasan Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) untuk rawatan dan pemeriksaan. Tetapi, perayu bertindak destruktif dan agresif selepas sedar. Ujian saringan urin menunjukkan perayu mengambil dadah methamphetamine/amphetamine dan benzodhiaziphine. Beliau dimasukkan ke wad psikiatri HKL dari 22.6.2015 hingga 26.6.2016 untuk distabilkan. [26] Pada tahun 2016, Dr. Mohammad Firdaus bin Abdul Aziz (SD2) adalah Pakar Psikiatri di HKL. SD2 adalah doktor yang merawat perayu S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 di wad psikiatri HKL dan menyediakan laporan perubatan D147. Mengikut D147, perayu menerima 5 rawatan susulan dan kali terakhir SD2 merawat perayu ialah pada 25.2.2016. [27] Semasa ditemubual oleh SD2, perayu mengaku beliau kerap mengambil dadah jenis methamphetamine dan enphitamine. Perayu juga mengaku beliau ada mengambil dadah jenis heroin dan telah pun mendapatkan rawatan methadone di klinik kesihatan terdekat. [28] SD2 memberi penjelasan, untuk mereka yang mengambil dadah jenis ETS emphathamine stimulant, antara symptom psikosis yang paling kerap adalah berhalusinasi iaitu mendengar suara atau melihat sesuatu yang tidak ada dan juga delusion. Delusion bermaksud percaya seseorang itu mahu mendatangkan kemudaratan, mahu mencederakan dia, berburuk sangka dengan orang. Sedangkan benda itu tidak betul. [29] Diagnosa SD2 dalam laporan D147 ialah perayu mengalami psikosis akibat penyalahgunaan dadah methamphetamine dan dadah heroin iaitu “Brief Psychotic Disorder secondary to Methamphetamine, Polysubstance (Methamphetamine/Amphetamine, Opiod) Use Disorder on Methadone Maintenance therapy”. [30] Menurut SD2, perayu berpotensi tinggi untuk mengalami psikosis semula kerana beliau kerap mengambil dadah methamphetamine dan jika perayu mengalami psikosis, ia boleh menjadi teruk dan berpanjangan. Seterusnya, SD2 juga menyatakan, oleh kerana perayu tidak lagi mendapatkan rawatan di HKL, maka jika berlaku psikosis mungkin tiada ubat untuk merawat beliau. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [31] Di akhir kes pembelaan, Hakim Bicara mendapati pembelaan perayu gagal menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah kepada kes pendakwaan atas alasan-alasan berikut: (i) Perayu adalah seorang yang waras, tidak mengalami masaalah mental dan tidak mengalami sebarang gejala psikosis berasaskan laporan perubatan daripada Dr. Suaran Singh a/l Jasmit Singh iaitu Pakar Perunding Psikiatri, Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta yang memeriksa perayu pada 14.12.2016. (ii) Kali terakhir SD2 memeriksa perayu ialah pada 25.2.2016. Kejadian kes ini berlaku 10 bulan kemudian iaitu pada 1.12.2016. Oleh itu, keterangan SD2 dan pendapat beliau dalam laporan D147 bahawa perayu mengalami psikosis akibat pengambilan dadah jenis methamphetamine dan heroin adalah terhad setakat 25.2.2016 dan tidak boleh menjadi bukti konklusif yang boleh diterima oleh mahkamah sebagai asas kepada legal insanity. (iii) Berasaskan laporan perubatan D146 yang disediakan oleh Dr. Suaran Singh, perayu tidak mengalami gejala psikosis dan hanya mempunyai masalah kebergantungan kepada dadah. Oleh itu, perayu bukan seorang yang “medically insane” sewaktu diperiksa oleh Dr. Suaran Singh. (iv) Tembakan perayu kepada semua mangsa adalah “focus attack” dan bukannya secara rambang seperti perbuatan orang yang hilang akal atau tidak waras. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (v) Perayu gagal membuktikan semasa beliau menembak kesemua mangsa, beliau tidak waras atau hilang akal. Perayu juga gagal membuktikan bahawa beliau tidak tahu perbuatannya menembak mangsa adalah salah atau menyalahi undang-undang. Oleh itu, legal insanity juga gagal dibuktikan. (vi) Pembelaan kemabukan dadah tidak pernah dibangkitkan semasa kes pendakwaan. Pembelaan ini hanya dihujahkan di akhir kes pembelaan. Maka, kemabukan dadah adalah pembelaan yang difikirkan kemudian dan bukanlah suatu pembelaan yang baik. Alasan-Alasan Rayuan [32] Perayu membangkitkan 4 isu berikut: (i) Sama ada Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan pembelaan kemabukan dadah tidak pernah ditimbulkan semasa kes pendakwaan. (ii) Sama ada Hakim Bicara telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan methadone mengurangkan pengambilan dadah methamphetamine oleh perayu dan memulihkan psikosis perayu. (iii) Sama ada Hakim Bicara betul dalam menilai keterangan mengenai pembelaan “medical insanity” dan “legal insanity”. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (iv) Sama ada Hakim Bicara betul dalam memutuskan tembakan adalah “focus attack” dan bukan secara rambang. Isu Kemabukan Dadah [33] Di para [98] alasan penghakiman beliau (Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1, ms 103), Hakim Bicara memutuskan kemabukan dadah tidak pernah dibangkitkan semasa kes pendakwaan. [34] Di hadapan kami, peguam perayu menghujahkan bahawa pembelaan kemabukan dadah ada dibangkitkansemasa kes pendakwaan. Peguam merujukkan kami kepada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan iaitu SP3, SP29 dan SP38 semasa di soal balas. [35] Kami mulakan dengan keterangan ahli kimia SP29. SP29 telah menjalankan ujian darah ke atas kesemua manga tembakan termasuk perayu. Saksi ini juga telah menyediakan satu laporan berasingan bagi setiap individu. Eksibit P12 adalah laporan ujian darah perayu. Ketika disoalbalas, SP29 setuju dalam P129, beliau menyatakan darah perayu mengandungi methadone. Menurut SP29, methadone adalah sejenis bahan yang digunakan dalam rawatan terapi untuk ketagihan heroin. Oleh itu, SP29 bersetuju ada kemungkinan perayu adalah penagih dadah. [36] Dato’ Dr. Zahari bin Noor (SP3) adalah seorang pakar perubatan. SP3 telah disoalbalas mengenai kesan kehadiran methadone dalam darah. Saksi ini setuju bahawa methadone adalah rawatan untuk heroin sahaja. Manakala bagi dadah methamphetamine, tiada rawatan seperti methadone. Saksi ini juga setuju ujian darah boleh mengesahkan sama ada seseorang itu di bawah rawatan methadone atau pun tidak. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [37] Pegawai penyiasat kes, ASP Azmirul bin Abdul Aziz (SP38) telah disoalbalas mengenai ketidaksempurnaan akal perayu dengan merujuk kepada laporan perubatan D146, D147, D149, D150 dan D151A. SP38 telah disoalbalas seperti berikut: S: Sebagai pegawai penyiasat, setuju dengan saya berasaskan dokumen D147, nampaknya OKT juga merupakan seorang pengguna dadah jenis methamphetamine atau Amphetamine? J: Setuju S: Rujuk ayat terakhir, doktor mengesahkan OKT ada peristiwa silam halusinasi suara dan penglihatan? J: Benar S: M/S 2 bahagian bawah, setuju rawatan adalah Stimulant Induced Psychotic Disorder; Amphetamine type stimulant? J: Ada S: Setuju daripada dokumentasi hospital, walaupun kamu ada pengetahuan bahawa OKT ada masalah mental khususnya halusinasi, tetapi kamu tidak membuat apa-apa siasatan berkenaan masalah mental ini secara teliti? J: Saya hanya berpandukan laporan s.342 CPC yang dihantar oleh Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta Perak. S: Setuju dengan saya, daripada dokumen, kamu boleh sahkan OKT pernah ada masaalah mental? J: Setuju [38] Daripada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan SP3, SP29 dan SP38, jelas kepada kami bahawa dari peringkat kes pendakwaan lagi, perayu telah membangkitkan pembelaan bahawa beliau adalah pengguna aktif dadah jenis methamphetamine/amphetamine dan dadah heroin. Akibat daripada pengambilan dadah-dadah ini, beliau mengalami S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 psikosis iaitu halusinasi suara dan Lembaga (auditory and visual hallucination) hingga hilang akal, agresif dan tidak ingat apa yang berlaku. [39] Apabila Hakim Bicara menyatakan kemabukan dadah tidak pernah ditimbulkan semasa kes pendakwaan, ia membawa kesimpulan bahawa Hakim Bicara telah gagal mematuhi seksyen 182A(1) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dalam menilai keseluruhan kes pendakwaan. Dengan menafikan pembelaan kemabukan dadah, Hakim Bicara telah melakukan salah arah yang serius yang menyebabkan berlakunya salah laksana keadilan (miscarriage of justice) dalam mensabitkan perayu kerana keterangan kemabukan dadah telah tidak dipertimbangkan oleh Hakim Bicara. [40] Atas fakta dan keadaan kes ini, kami bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam perayu bahawa dapatan Hakim Bicara bahawa pembelaan kemabukan dadah adalah pembelaan yang difikirkan kemudian adalah satu dapatan yang salah, yang bertentangan dengan keterangan yang ada di hadapan mahkamah. Isu Methadone Memulihkan Psikosis Perayu [41] Di para [104] Alasan Penghakiman (Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1 ms 108, Hakim Bicara membuat dapatan fakta berikut: “... Sebaliknya OKT dalam kes ini tidak mengambil sebarang dadah pada masa kejadian dan hanya mengambil methadone yang disahkan oleh SD2 berkesan untuk mengurangkan pengambilan dadah ice (methamphetamine) kepada OKT sekaligus memulihkan psikosis yang dialami oleh OKT.” S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [42] Komplen perayu terhadap penemuan fakta Hakim Bicara itu ialah SD2 tidak pernah memberi keterangan bahawa methadone berkesan untuk mengurangkan pengambilan dadah ice (methamphetamine) dan sekali gus memulihkan psikosis yang dialami oleh perayu. [43] Sebaliknya, pakar perubatan, SP3 menyatakan methadone adalah ubat gantian untuk dadah heroin dan tiada ubat gantian untuk dadah jenis methamphetamine. [44] Keterangan SD2 ialah jika perayu mengalami psikosis lagi, tidak ada ubat untuk merawat perayu kerana beliau tidak lagi mendapatkan rawatan susulan di HKL. [45] Kesimpulan yang boleh dibuat dari keterangan SP3 dan SD2 ialah tidak ada ubat untuk merawat atau mengurangkan pengambilan dadah methamphetamine. Juga tidak ada ubat untuk memulihkan psikosis perayu. Methadone hanyalah ubat gantian untuk merawat ketagihan dadah heroin sahaja. Ini bermakna, dapatan Hakim Bicara bahawa methadone berkesan mengurangkan pengambilan dadah methamphetamine dan memulihkan psikosis perayu tidak disokong oleh keterangan dan adalah satu dapatan yang salah. Realitinya ialah perayu belum pulih dari psikosis. Beliau mengalami psikosis pada 1.12.2016. [46] Kesan dari kekhilafan ini, Hakim Bicara telah menyimpulkan bahawa perbuatan perayu melepaskan tembakan terhadap kesemua mangsa adalah dibuat dengan niat. Pada pendapat kami Ini adalah salah arah yang serius yang telah menyebabkan berlakunya ketidakadilan kepada perayu. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Isu Medical Insanity Dan Legal Insanity [47] Perbezaan di antara legal insanity dan medical insanity telah dijelaskan oleh pengarang Buku Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes 26 th edn di m.s 307 seperti berikut: “Medical insanity” and “legal insanity” - There is a good deal of difference between “medical insanity” and “legal insanity” and courts are concerned only with the legal and not the medical of the matter. It is not every kind of frantic humour or something unaccountable in a men’s action, that points him out to be a mad man, to be excepted from punishment, It is not mere eccentricity or singularity of manner that would suffice the plea of insanity. Abnormality of mind is not by itself sufficient to show that the accused must have acted while of unsound mind. Such exemption can be claimed only when the insane person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or he is doing either wrong or contrary to law.” [48] Dalam kes John Nyumbei v PP [2007] 2 CL J 509, Abdul Hamid Embong, HMR (beliau pada ketika itu) telah membuat dapatan fakta mengenai pembelaan Insanity seperti berikut: “10. The law on unsoundness of mind as a complete defence in our criminal jurisprudence is, as was correctly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, contained in s.84 of the Penal Code. It states: 84. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 12. Thus, under s.84 Penal Code, criminality has to be determined according to that legal test and not merely by the mental state of an accused person according to the medical test. 14. When the defence of insanity is raised, the court thus needs to consider two matters, namely: (i) whether the accused person has successfully established, as a preliminary issue, that at the time of committing the act he was of unsound mind, and (ii) if he was of unsound mind, whether he has proven that his unsoundness of mind was a degree to satisfy one of the tests earlier mentioned ie, that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act as being wrong or against the law. (see Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes, 5th edn, p 289 et seq). 16. The standard of proof upon the accused raising the defence of insanity is on the balance of probabilities, as in a civil case (Rajagopal v PP [1976] 1 LNS 122; [1977] 1 ML J 6; Goh Yoke v PP [1969] 1 LNS 48; [1970] 1 ML J 63). So, if the appellant here is able to show, either from the prosecution or other evidence that he committed the crime but was at that time insane, he cannot be culpable by virtue of s.84 Penal Code.” [49] Dalam kes ini, perayu mengatakan beliau tidak ingat apa yang berlaku. Beliau hanya tersedar apabila mendengar arahan supaya meletakkan senjata. [50] Tidak ada penjelasan kenapa beliau tidak ingat. Keterangan yang ada ialah beliau mengalami psikosis, mendengar bisikan suara dan S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 nampak lembaga hitam di sebelahnya. SP37 telah memberi keterangan bahawa beliau mendengar perayu “chanting” 2 - 3 minit sebelum mendengar bunyi tembakan. Tingkah laku perayu “chanting” menunjukkan perayu ada legal insanity. Perayu secara tiba-tiba tanpa sebab bertindak agresif menembak orang-orang yang tidak dikenali (kecuali OTK) yang melepasi kereta BMW. Masaalah psikosis ini pernah berlaku semasa perayu dirawat di HKL pada 22.6.2015. Laporan perubatan HKL berkaitan rawatan pada 22.6.2015 terkandung dalam eksibit D151A. [51] Dalam laporan HKL, eksibit D151A, perayu juga didapati mengambil dadah methamphetamine dan ubat methadone pada masa tersebut. Tetapi, perayu bertindak agresif dan destruktif. Semasa di wad psikiatri, kaki dan tangan perayu terpaksa diikat oleh kakitangan HKL. Dalam D151A, doktor yang membuat pemeriksaan fizikal terhadap perayu pada 22.6.2015 menulis: “…There was the presence of visual and auditory hallucinations and persecutory delusions at the time.” Seterusnya, doktor tersebut membuat diagnosa berikut: “stimulant induced psychotic disorder (amphetamine type stimulant) with stimulant use disorder.” [52] Maka, psikosis yang dialami perayu pada 1.12.2016 adalah psikosis yang berulang. SD2 telah memberi keterangan bahawa pengambilan dadah methamphetamine memberi kesan fizikal dan mental kepada pengambilnya. SD2 juga telah memberi keterangan bahawa jika perayu mengalami psikosis berulang, psikosis beliau akan menjadi lebih teruk. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [53] Walaupun Hakim Bicara nampaknya menerima fakta bahawa perayu mengalami psikosis, tetapi Hakim Bicara memilih untuk menerima laporan perubatan D146 yang disediakan oleh Dr. Suaran Singh sebagai laporan yang tepat mengenai keadaan mental perayu. Hakim Bicara dipengaruhi oleh faktor bahawa Dr. Suaran Singh memeriksa perayu pada 14.12.2016, 2 minggu selepas kejadian tembakan sebagai laporan yang lebih tepat berbanding pemeriksaan terakhir SD2 ke atas perayu pada Februari 2016. [54] Pada pendapat kami, tujuan laporan D146 itu disediakan adalah untuk menentukan sama ada perayu layak (fit) untuk dibicarakan. Dr. Suaran Singh tidak dapat dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan kerana sapina tidak dapat diserahkan kepada beliau. Fakta menunjukkan Dr. Suaran Singh telah bersara dan beliau tidak dapat dihubungi. Tetapi, seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan menghendaki perayu membuktikan beliau hilang akal pada masa kesalahan dilakukan. Oleh itu, bagi maksud seksyen 84 KK, isu yang perlu diputuskan oleh mahkamah ialah sama ada perayu hilang akal pada 1.12.2016. [55] Kami mendapati Hakim Bicara tidak mengambilkira keterangan perayu yang disokong oleh keterangan SP37 iaitu perayu membaca ayat kursi dan chanting untuk menenangkan hatinya semasa mengalami halusinasi suara dan lembaga hitam. Selepas itu, perayu bertindak agresif menembak mangsa. Kelakuan agresif perayu ini adalah konsisten dengan tingkah laku agresif beliau terhadap pesakit-pesakit lain semasa berada di wad psikiatri HKL dan juga semasa berada di wad Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta pada 14.12.2016. Tingkahlaku perayu pada masa kejadian 1.12.2016 itu jelas menunjukkan perayu hilang akal dan tidak tahu apa yang dilakukannya. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [56] Pada pendapat kami, pembelaan perayu bahawa beliau hilang akal akibat pengambilan dadah methamphetamine dan mengalami halusinasi suara dan lembaga yang menyebabkan beliau bertindak agresif tanpa sedar disokong oleh laporan perubatan D147 dan D151A. Pembelaan perayu ini menunjukkan beliau tiada niat untuk membunuh 3 mangsa dan cuba membunuh 5 mangsa. Isu Tembakan Rambang [57] Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Bicara menyatakan tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan perayu telah melepaskan tembakan secara rambang. [58] Sebaliknya, kami mendapati keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan iaitu SP9, SP11 dan SP18 menunjukkan keadaan yang berlaku adalah sebaliknya. [59] SP9 telah memberi keterangan berikut semasa disoalbalas: S: Memandangkan kamu ada lihat dia, setuju dengan saya dia lepaskan tembakan tidak tentu hala? J: Setuju. [60] SP11 pula memberi keterangan berikut. Beliau sedang menunggang motosikal bila ditembak oleh perayu. Beliau berada dalam jarak antara 8 - 9 kaki dari perayu. Beliau lari bersembunyi di belakang pokok. Beliau nampak perayu berlegar-legar di atas jalanraya dan melepaskan tembakan. Kepada SP11, tingkahlaku perayu adalah seperti orang gila. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [61] SP18 yang menunggang motosikal telah ditembak di bahagian dada. Selepas terkena tembak, SP18 nampak perayu melepaskan beberapa das tembakan ke atas. [62] Keterangan SP9, SP11 dan SP18 menunjukkan perayu melepaskan tembakan secara rambang dan tidak tentu hala. [63] Mengambilkira keterangan SP9, SP11 dan SP18, kami mendapati dapatan Hakim Bicara bahawa tembakan dibuat secara focus attack dan bukan secara rambang adalah tidak tepat dan tidak disokong oleh keterangan. Keputusan Kami [64] Setelah meneliti kes pembelaan, kami mendapati perayu telah berjaya membuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa beliau mengalami sakit otak (legal insanity) pada masa kejadian sebagaimana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan di mana ia tidak terjumlah kepada satu kesalahan jenayah. [65] Menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah seksyen 347 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, Mahkamah ini membebas dan melepaskan perayu kerana beliau melakukan kesalahan semasa hilang akal dan tidak mengetahui perbuatan beliau adalah salah atau menyalahi undang-undang (legal insanity). [66] Selanjutnya, menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah seksyen 348 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, Mahkamah ini memerintahkan perayu dihantar ke Hospital Mental di Perak atau di Johor mengikut kesesuaian dan S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Mahkamah akan menyediakan laporan kepada Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang DiPertuan Agong bagi perkenan Tuanku di bawah seksyen 348(2) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. [67] Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman dibenarkan. Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi atas sabitan dan hukuman diketepikan. Bertarikh: 4 Januari 2024 - sgd - Hadhariah binti Syed Ismail Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Bagi Perayu : Encik Anbanathan a/l Yathiraju; Tetuan Anba & Associates. Bagi Responden : TPR Puan How May Ling; Jabatan Peguam Negara. S/N ClHccazzp0C9nQbe/1AJMQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-17D-6-02/2022

PERAYU Ee Chee Beng RESPONDEN 1. ) Richard Law Yiuh Hung 2. ) CHENG LAI HAR 3. ) K. ALEX ABRAHAM A/L K.A. ABRAHAM 4. ) ONG YEW IMM 5. ) SUSMA A/P BATUK @ SURESH CHANDRA 6. ) CHEN BOON PIEW 7. ) SURESHRAJ A/L KRISHNAN PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM

Legal Profession - Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) - Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) - Findings - Recommendations to Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“DB”) Legal Profession - Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017 - r 15(1) - DC shall complete the hearing and submit the report within four months – Chairman of DB may grant extension – Four extensions were granted – Final extension was granted until 28.10.2019 – DC only finalised its Report on 20.12.2012 without proof of further extension – Whether the DC inquiry is a nullity for want of jurisdiction and authority – Appellant not given the opportunity to object to the extensions by the DB – Whether against principles of natural justiceLegal Profession - Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017 – Effect of non-compliance – Whether mere irregularity – Whether can be save by r 24

09/01/2024

YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ae8127dd-7ca5-478f-abeb-3488044a5a97&Inline=true

09/01/2024 11:57:58 WA-17D-6-02/2022 Kand. 37 S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3SeBrqV8j0er6zSIBEpalw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—17D—G—02/2022 Kand. 37 as/01/2n2L 11 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LIJMPUR BALAM WILAVAM PERSEKUYUAN, MALAYSIA SAMAH PEMULA NO.WA17D a-oz/znzz Dalam Perkzra barkenazn Seksyen man Am Pmlesmn Undangrunflana van Dun Dalam ream bevkemnn Seksyen I03: Akla Pmlesm Umlanq-Undanu ma Dan Dalnm Pavkzva uankenun Muan No no/mans hamidap mama Law ‘(um um Dun Dalam Derkam bsvkenaan Penman benankh 712522 m bnwnh Seluy-n man ma Prmesmn unaang~um..g, ms men Lemn-lg: Tatalemb Feguamnexa nan Paguamura mm rmm. pnvk-n blmannn Bahagnan vn Ans Pmiesnon Undang»Undanq ms. Kaedam Kaadan Pmlesbn umng.una.ng (Prvswdlm Talammh) 2017. Kaadarrkzsdih Pmledur, mu (mkum Yavaxemm Psfiuimcxll an Pesulmlsala‘ mm. Kaedah Pmfvuan Undzngundang (wmamg ompxw (Rnuzm) mm, Kudahr Kaedah Prmmmn Undanvumianu (Lemmy: T:la|emb7 (Prusedur) 1594 Dan Dam Perkara belkenaan Alurzn 55» Kasdarrkasdah mmmn zmz . sm ssesmvlmsmzswain-1w «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! ANTARA RICHARD LAW vIuH HUNG (No. KIP: 770702-13-5051) ...PERAvu DAM 1‘ EE CHEE EENG (Na. KIF: wo5n2.1a.sss7) 2. CHENG LN HAR (Nu. KIP: wosw-1o-auz) 3. K. ALEX AERAHIM AIL K.A. ABRAHAM mo. KIP: ooosnz-10-3351) 4. am: YEW IMM (No. K/P: saoeI1-07-5:72) 5. susMA NF BATUK @ suREsH CHANDRA (No. KW: snoau-1n-Mas) 5. CHEN BOON PIEW (No. KIF: 590211-1o-5533) 7. SURESHRAJ A/L KRISHNAN ...RESPONDEN- (No. KW: 75n7n4-14-5551) RESFONDEN DAN MAJLIS PEGIIAM WPENCELAH VANG DICADANG JUDGMENT The (actual background [1] The appellant Is an advncale and solicitor who. at the malena1 ume. was pmcn ng me name and sty\e oi Messvs Jummana Law .2 Partners (‘am 2 am :lSaEu1VB1nsmzs\EEaa\w ma saw ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm Va muNG pm [411 wlln respscl, I asm employs ms word “shall? ll danows marldamnness Fallure |o comply cannot be construed as a mere lrregularily. as laamed nmmsel [or the Ear Cnuncll urged me lo conclude [43] In Dull Vang Am: Mum Tunku Ibrahim Ismail lbnl sumn Iskand-r AI-HI] Tunku Mahkaln Johar v mm capurn H-mnh bln Mend Mao: and anomsr app9Il{2UU9] 4 MLJ 149 FC, the Faaual coun haid xnal me Saving clause cl 0 1A ml me man Rules 91 Hugh coun leeo (“RHC') nlusl nol supersede a mandatory requlremem cl lne RHC Order 1A cannot be Invoked when a pany in|sn|lonaHy alsregams m aomplylng wflh |ne RHC, [44] In dallvenng lne ludgmenl onne court. Zak: A1 (2.! remarked as rollows: The Iechmcal non-mmpllarwa no any rule may in Mmadlnd when mm 1! In -czlduunl umlsuon or overssgm w a party A general pmvlslnn such as 0 IA ul Inc we V5 [or III: mm or judge (0 glvs new In |us1lce over Vacnrlcal norxmmnllnnce M must not supsmae nmnnnulory raqmvumlm or the Rules Omer IA urmm be lnvnked when a pany lnlemlarlnlly dllrpgalds .n wmplylng wlln me Rules omemlss. panles would be encumagad lo arms the Rules [451 In lne clmlmlstances, W my judgment, r 2A onne 2017 Rules could nol be lnvcked when Ihe mandalory lequlremem ui r 15 had been breached I therefor: hold lhll the pmcedural breach could no! he saved by I 24. ‘rugs [45] Forms aloresaid reasons, lne DC, lncannnuing with me lnqulryunm 14.11 2619‘ had done so without aulhuflly since there was no evidence 07 any extension 07 |ime granted beyond 25.10 2019. [471 rnls appeal I5 allowed I) m Jsefiuzvlvfiamzslfliu-lw “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. U... m may he nflmruflly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl .nuna Wm! (am The mquiry is. nrrererere. a nuH\Iy luv want of yunsdnchon and authority [49] oonsequermy, me mlpugned Order ollhe DB .3 alm a nullxly and s hereby set aswds If Ihe fine has been paid, V1 ought in he rehmded k: the EDDBIIIM. [so] mere shaH be no order as to costs Post Surlm [513 For mmmeteness, allow me |o make W5 observation [521 The standard of proof rn disc [2 ary proceedings under me LPA rs beyond reasonable doub| Tms propesmorr rs Iara down by the Feuerafl Court in Kemr Slllan/Lao Kwnng and TInnlkoan[1BBfl] 2 MLJ 191 F0 The proposition was reuerauea m many subsequent cases, mclumng by me Conn :71 Apnea! m P servmi a/I SKF Pa/am v Pan nsy I/p smlrr-garrr 5 Anar[2019] MLJU 1722 on [53] In makmg e raccmrnendauon in me DB‘ a Do must direct us mind on this standard 0! mar. The [male or an advocate and smarter Is at stake [541 unrummacery, \ find me ncs Reponlo be wavmng. \ say Ihis for two reasons First, there Is nommg m we Repcn me! says what speeme provision of ewlher the LPA 0! the Maxed Rules (hereunder that Ihe appellant was afleged to have been breached. In pfilfl (vH)(d) of Pad A ohne Report, me no sea lhis In me errcumsuncex, nu Comrnmse \s or me mm mm were 5 a mmcr mscenaucx was! 1“ am 7- cor-warms and sewn: mucmvducl under me 3'4 wmvlaml wflhm me meanrrg 0! Secflan 1u3u:ym(sW IM LPA Tms Is mos| unfommale There rs no such sectmn In the LPA Trus gives H53 in Ihe mos! penirlenl xssue. It Is [his The appellam was «mm guilty on a non-exrslanl prowsron oflhe LPA u r~ Jsesmvlrfisruzswfifa-1w «mm. sew nmhnrwm a. U... w my r... mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum war [55] Secondly. m ms Report me ac made an adverse remark on the lame or me 7'» oommalnanl |o allend me Inquiry. The no then slated ms altenaance would have crowded 2 awev nrcluru 0! In: rula puma by mm mum. ma Dams: am: lumer addressed me ssncs What does this mean? One can be lorgwen m oancludmg mat the no had found the appeflanl gmlly of msmmucn and serious mlsmnducl on an unclear evidence. Thai |a me is Val-fe|Ched Mir" the standard Of beyond reasonable doubt reqwved In E dvscwplmary proneedmg. [sq So. even in am wrong In ruling on me ‘me afwam ovaumomy and ;unsdIcImn‘ me reoommennauon 01 the no and me mdev made by the DE are s|\II bad m Vaw. [57] Vwuwd have come (0 the same oondusmn m arlowmg |his appeal. Yurlkhz 9 Jnnuari 2024 L4 (WAN AHMAD FARID am wAu SALLEH) Hakim Mahkamah Tmggl Kuala Lumpur. mu-pm Bagw Pmak Parayu Ananma Knshnana/I (impala Ktsnnan a r.m....n mm TeluanAnamha Knshr-an Bngw um Pencsbh Tm Kmv In ‘(Any Dsudawknn Tuluan mm Law om 1: sm ssesmvlmsmzswain-1w «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! [2] In tne course 0! ms practice with JLP. ma aupallanl was appotnled by one Kausar Tegun Sdn Bhd Mausan‘) to deal me resoonoanta on s passions rnvesrnranr lransachan sornatrrnas In My 2015‘ (he 15'‘ 2". 5'" and 7” respondems attended a rneetrng wtlh Da|o' Mahendvan all Chelladomt (“Mahendran") and one Dam‘ About Mu|a|ilbin Abdul Rahtm (‘Mul * . uwas dtscussefl W [hat meelinsl that Kausar required mvesimenl Vunds tor a psrroo uf12 rnantns wtlh a guaranteed return or 2% per month. [3] tr was agreed at me nreeung that an mveslmenl sum at RMa,5oo,tJun rrnvestment sum’) was to be patd by tne tnleresled oartrss to Kausar (hmugh JLF‘s dIenls' account uoon reoetpr attna investmentsurn1romtneinvesmrs,.tLt= was |a retsase the same to venous names. [4] The braakdawrt of the rnvestrnent sum Is as rouows ny RHMSODOU by Ee cnee sang, me I“ respondent toeoeaseap, tn) RM380,000 by cneng Lat Har, me 2" respondent: RM5o,ooo by Alex Ahranarn (deoeasedlr the 3'“ respondent, RM5DD.00D by Ong Yew Imm, trra 4"‘ raspondenlr (V) RMI50.DOD by Susma alp Batuk, tne 5* resoonrtant; (vt) RM! ‘mama by cnen Boon Ptewr me 5"‘ respondent: and (wt) RM97aroon by Sumshr-31 all Kllshnan, ma 7* respondent. Tho Complnlnl [51 By a lauer da|sd 3 7 mn. tne respondenls tortgaa a aornptarnr to tne Advocates and solrottors Dtsctplinary Eoard ('DB‘). aslabfished unoer the Lega\ Frolsssron Ad 1976 (‘LPA"|r agarnst the appeuant The 9151 of Ihe oomptatrrr agarnst Ihe apoeuant can he summanssd as vouows: (at ‘me resparmanrs were not gwen a oopy 0101: lnvesvnenl Agreement rn zsesmvlvfisruzstfifn-tw “None s.n.r mmhnrwm .. .r... M my r... DVWVVVAWY mm: dnuunnnl vu nrtum vmm in) The respondenis were riolgivefl receipis oflhe paymenls inai they had inade. (c) The appeilariuailed to prove wiieiher ihe rnvesirneni sum was aomrdingly iransierred in the rsspective padres. [5] Subsequent 10 mar, me 3'‘, 4"-, 5'", 6"‘ resppnderiis had willidmwn iheir coinplainis agairisi the appeiiani. The 7* respondent did not iuriher pariicipaie in iria disciplinary proceedings againsi ihe appeiiani [7] In iha iiriai ariaiysis. ii was ihe 1-‘ and 2" respdridenis who had proceeded with me eairipiairn [5] The as ihen iereired iha eairipiaini is me uiscipiinary ceiriiniiiee (‘DC’) which was appuinied io inquire inio ihe mrnplainl AI iii: Disciplinary coiriininm [9] As alluded io earner, the rnamar was heard by the Do wiih ihe Mi: remaining complainants ieit They were Encik Ee, me 1“ pgrnpiainani and Enclk ciieng, me 2"’ cdinpiainarii [in] In iis repan, me no summarised ihe grounds oloomplamt againsi Ihe appelianl as VOHONS. la) No irivesiriieni agreemernsi N an all, were given to the Complalnarlls (‘me 1" oompiainf); rm Np receipis ier ihe payinenis made were issued |o ihe mmplainanls (‘me 2"” cernpiainr). and (c) The appeiiant was aware oi ihe scheme hu| did not give a eaiisiaeipry expianahan io ihe eorripiainanis regarding «heir veshneril (“the 3'“ ceirip ') [111 in iis repen, ihe DC made a finding oi iaci ihai ihe appeiiani had railed io prepare and lorward ihe Ilweslmenl agreerriariis ip ihe ieievani panies The DC riiriher Ioiind mar ihe appeiiani had aiso raiied In issue valid receipis var ihe paymems made by me complainants rn 3SeBNVl9Damz5\EEnniw “Nair s.n.i nurihnrwm be UIQG m vufli i... aniin.iiiy MIMI dnuurinrrl Vfl aFiuNG Wm! [12] The lssua lo he delyrnined by me DC was lhl whmmrlheru wasnn ehllgilnn Mme appcrlarll la mam one purpose M [me Comrlalrlarllil lnve5l.man| mun! , since me nvnellnm mm prepared me Investment Agreemenl em 25 7 2015. Sale [cl] Shams Agreement daled 20 s 2015 and llmhnr acted an [I] slakshuldar fur the pamesw The DC had answered me send ISSUE: in \he followlrlg manner (2) By vlrlua ol me eppellanl acllng as a stakeholder lor the inveslmem memes from the complainants‘ me appellanl was undera my to exam: |he whole scheme u1lnveslment.Tms wu es, even W me appsllanl was only anhng lo: Knusar la) The appellant was aware. or at me very least oughl to have known, (he whole scheme — m particular Ina purpose of me investment — which he had lalled lo exulain In the wmplalnanls. [131 In lls Regan. Ihe DC concluded lhal lhe apnsllam had commllwd minurmisconduol on me 1“ and 2'” eomplalnls. Hawever, awarding In the no, me sppellaru had eemmnm eennus mlsmnduclarl me 3"’ complaint [I4] The DC men proceeded lo make lhl: laoommandallorl lo Ihe DB: In me ulcumslances‘ we unammously meemmem a mpnmnm lgsmll me Respnndam lapcellzlnl (or me 1" and 2"-1 mmplalnxs and (mu ul nmuumo my me am mmphlnl mpeawely At an Dilclpllnary Board [15] Ailercunslderiny the Repon prepared by the Dc under s 103D at the LPA. the DB made the lallawmg Order on 7.1.2022, where the word “Respundan|“ relers |o |he appellanl: . In reaped ol me P’ and 2m compla-nus. me umlplman, Band lffimnd me 5 m Jsefiflzvlvfiemzslfifn-lw “Nair Sum! nuvlhnrwm .. H... e may he mm-y -mm: dnuuvlml Vfl .mm Wm! msmpunary Ccmmmnes «mm o: xmmmy and recommendamn on DuIusNnen| for Ike 1- and 2"-1 Camnlawms‘ rr Is nenzsv onnsnen «nu ma Rnvcmderfl be repnmunded‘ and n In mspea at me am compumn, ms Diwpllrury Board alflrmed me n pnnauy Comm\I!ea's nmmp L71 nspmy and vawmmendalnn on punuhmtnl luv ms 3" Cumplawfl, It Is nsnzav ORDERED mat the Rswanaenl up nay n fin: m Rmggll Manama Ten Yhnusxnd 1RM1u um: am my payablehothe Dlsdplme rum wnhm am My momh vm ms Omar mu m DEFALILY THEREOF Se-than mam ml the Act snau npmy [I6] Aegnevm by the Order at me DB, me appeuam med |ms appeal undav 5 1035 011113 LPA. Tm Origlnnllnu summons [171 ms appeal, wmch i5 filed by way or an Ongmaling Summons, ws supporled by the aflidavvl oflhe appeuam m Encl 2 |“AlS—2“). The appeuam filed mrlhsr amaavus in Encls 3, 9 and 1u(“A|s—a'. “AIS- a‘ and ws-1n"). [15] me Bar Councwl med an apphcanon ca umervene m Encl 6 under s 103E|6) nllhe LPA Tm: applicamon was aunwed by mus own an 3 12 2022. [19] In response «.2 me amaavixs m suppufl mm by me appellant, mp Bar Councfl med an affidavwt In many lhmugh Anand Ra; all Balasupramamam in End 20 (“AIR-20“), Encik Anand Ra] Is me Secrulary xp ms Bar Council. [20] The appellant med a further affidzvlt m Encl 21 (“AlS—21“], m 3SeBNVl9fiamzS\EEnn\w «mm. Snr1|\nuuhnrwH\I>e U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-NM The pruliminary objocno mu Imarvauur [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [271 [28] There are separate plehmmary cmsclnons med by me apveflant and me Bar cauncu. 1w.uaeaIw11n1m ebemane m mm. The seuemry onhe aarcouncil m AIR-20 raised me Issue 1ha1 Ihe appeuanl nan aHeged|ylai\ed 1o commy wnn s103E uhhe LPA The Order of me DB was handed on 7 1 2022. However, me appeflanl had omy Mad 1ms OS on 11 2.2022, which. accummg to Enuk Maud‘ Is on! o1 nrne s 103511) o1 lha LFA provides 1ne1a pany aggneved by any nnau order araeusm made by the DB shaH hava me ngm to amass! to the High ceun mm. one momh 0! me reoe1p1a11ne na1rfica11on oi mail order or decision In para 5 of A1540. Encik Anena Ra[inIeIaII'a,a1fim\ed as iollowsz Waleubeaaiman-npun mvuan alau Simian Femula um hanya men u11..1u.. puda 172 2:122 D1511 Mu monurux Saksyan masm APUL|.pemVa1l:n rayuanlersehnl zdalah 111 luar pnqka muss ynnq mlmnp|1irrd\ e.e.er1um1ana— 1-mar-9 In response |n this ussemon. the appefllnt, in his AIS-2|, nffirmsd mal although me DB had made an mderun 71.2oz2,1he apuenam omy received me nolmcauon daled 12 1 21:22 on 19.1.2022. Trus can be seen 171 Exh RL4. Ihave no reason In 11 believe 1ms assen1on.s1noe|ms os was med on 17 2 2022 i1 Is slill wllhin (he nme s11pu1e1ec1 in s I03E(1|In(ha( 11 us wmwu one month nnne recap: Mme nuuficaliun av me Order made by me DB 1n any even1,1n1s abyecuan 15 mil pursued by Veamed counsel rurme Bar councn. m zsesmvlmeruzswain-1w «mm. 5.11.1 mmhnrwm .. 1.... m my 1... nnmn.u-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl muNa we nu Pnllnlhury Pol - nu Applllanl [291 The appellant, loo. rilsed a prellmlnary pcirll ll is (Ms Acccrdlrlg |a learned counsel lor lne appellant, there was a serlous prolxedural lmpmpnaly ln [ha process of heavlng [he wmplalnl by the DC The DC had filled to complete the hearlng and submll lls Report willwl four lrlonlhs cl lls appolnlment as provlded by r 15(1) Mlhe Legal Prolasslan (Dlscipllnary Pmceedlngs) Rules 2017 (me “20I7 Rules“) II provides as follows: We nnmpllnuy Cummmla vlall omuplale (he neanng and sumnnms Ivponwllhln sowmmlns hum me dale m ll: apoelnmnl [sol ln the lnslanl case, me DC neanng the oomplalnl agalnsl the appellant was appmmea by the me on 2:: 7 2Dl8 Pam 5 ul lne Repnn ml lnvesllgallng Pmeeedings scales as lollows (ll 25 1 zale ; Lefler M Appnlnlmerll (ll) 141.2019 . 1-“ Leller cl Exlensben (ill) 19 3.2019 : 2"“ Letter cl Exlenslon (lv) 24 e 2019 am Leuev ul Exlenslcn (V) 29 8.2019 4"‘ Leller ol Exlarlslnrl Fmm Rh: Repon ol lnvesllgaling Proceedings lam exlarlslons of (lms were granlsd. The lasl exlenslon was by way ol a lunar dialed 29.5.2019. [31] Under r 15(3) ollhe 2017 Rules‘ lhe Chalrman wflhe DC may. UPOH an appllcallun in wmirlg lo lne Chalmlarl olme DB, gram :1 period of exlension not exceedlng Iwo months‘ pruvlded mat lhele are reasonable grounds to do in R 1514] lurlhar provides "131 whale me hearing cannot beconcluded wnhln me penad referred to WI sub- rule (3), me Chalmlan M me pa may grant lurlher exlensmns until the DC concludes I15 hearlrlg [32] According lo lne appellanl, slnoe lne lasl extension was grallled ml 29 5.2019, lne DC should have submmad me Recon on or by 23 lo zols. ll ls nal ln dispute lhal me DC only firlallsed Ils vepun on 20122019. well pasl lhe two-rrlorllll exlenslcn granted to me Committee. m 3SeBNVl9DsmzSlEEnnlw “Nair Smnl mmhnrwlll .. U... M my me nflnlnnllly sun. mm. Vfl nFluNG ml [33] In response in lnis allegacldn, Erlclk Anand R3]. in para 16 ol nls AIR-20‘ affirmed inter alia as lellaws: Selerusnya heal manlavrdh kevada r-erenggen is nrngg. Z1AMavllSokarlgan Plalnld aelalen fllnanhall oleh Peauamnnn lzeneannl uya seslmagunnya percayz can meuyanaksn bahawi r.nun blur: lsrakhlr eaea 14 112mg dzn JT lelan merlgemukakan Damian nan syer JT lmsubm Dada 2o 12 my Maka lanes 41 ielanpun memflluhl Kaadarl 15l Kaedalr loedan Pmlesmrl Urbdzng-Undang rprardlna raialenlul znn (KP\JU(PT)) 134} laelore me, learned counsel lor ine appellanlsubmuled that desplle aelng challengsdl |hc Ear Councll has lailed |o exnmll me lellers at exlenslofl ldrinls calm to fletermlne ilihe apgllwlions had acmally been made or eyenlually granted Wha| was me dulallan ol lne respeciive ex1enslons’I when was me rasvecllve explry dale 01 me purporled exlenslan" [35] wlin raspeci. l find rnerils ln Inns llne o1IIgI.lmenI.Aomrdlrlg 10 H5 onlie 2017 Rules, an extension oiirms can only be granied rrinere are reasonable grounds |o do so”. More rmpenanrly, since lne purported exrensians would have eflected ine legeliiy 0! me no pmoeedlngsi the appellanl ought to be rnionned or Ihe annlicailon and granllng oleach exiension oi Ume That. la me. is basic natural rusilce [36] There ls no evidence belnre me that the appellanl was lnlormed, let alune lhe rlqhl ll? be heard. an the purporuud uxlenslon cl Iims granied by me ms. [37] ln any everlL ins lasl axlenslon, assuming lor una nmrneni, ll ls var two mnnlns, expired on 28 10.2019. There was no evldence 0! any lunner exlen n ufllme. However, wha| lransplred Is that, as can be seen in para 16 MAIR-20, ine DC wenl on to conlinue holding me lnqulry unlll 14 11.2019, beyond me time sxlended by lne DB [35] True glues rise |n lne legamy oi lne inqulry since me no proceedad wiln lne same even aller me nnal dale urine exlenslun oi urne. ll IS my considered new inal unlrl and unless one DE grams a lumber exlenslon oi llma. me DC na longer has lne jurlsdlcllon Ia contlnue with me lflllulryy and I so nald rn Isefimvlvfiemzslfifnnlw “Nana Smnl mrrlhnrwlll .. UIQG m my l... nflnlrullly ml. dnumlml Vfl nFluNfl Wm! [39] The same rssue was raised ln Llaw cm Hwy y Wong cnlrr Moon 12111517 cu 485. Amangsl me grounds argued by me appellant In seurng aalde me daasian el me DB were that me at: had valued lo prepare and forward ns notes at proceedings to ma DE pursuanl lo r 2545) of me Legal Pmfesslon (Dlsclplmary Predeedrngsl llnveuigaling Tribunal Ind Dieerplinary Commluee) Rules 1994 ['lhe199-3 Rules‘) [401 In eudwrng me appeal‘ me l-lrgrr com held me: annudgn me na ls set up by me LPA lo deal mun cnmplainls cl rniseonducl against advocales and sullcilors, ll had In comply mm the prdpedure lald down in me LPA and the Rules made thereunder. under r 2s(2l ol one 1994 Rules, It was a mandatory requrrenrern ldr me DC la send a repcrl |o me nrreclur, logelrrer wnn me record of its invesllgallnrl prepeedrnge. in lwo nrpnlrrs or me dale cl l|s appoinlmenl. Based on me erndence, me DC nad breached r 26(2)a1lhe 1994 Rules in oonflucling the dlsclpllnsry proceedings [41] Learned counsel lor lrre Bar Ccnmcll relred on rr 2: and 24 onhe 2017 Rules They pmvlde es ldllows 423) Any flalay ln lire wmmenoemenl or wmplellon or any nearrng and Inqulry wilalher caused by Wu rnupecny 0! n membsvr by me zppolnlmem or a new member or Val lny ulnar reaepn shell rum render mm any neannp held or any Inquiry‘ repon or reeernnrerrdalmr nude by me Dlsclplimuy Gamnlllse ar me case my be (247 u at any suge In ms course of or in conrlaunn mm nny prmsarngr, by reason Mznylhmg don: uv undone, there has new a lallule lo mrnpry wrln any 0! rn. requrrernenls 0701616 am we rnunre shall he nealea as an megulanly And .n.n nu! nulmy [I'll pmroedmgs. .ny slep taken ln (ha prweedlngs or any nnmng, flwenlnn mdsullunmadu unless sud. non-cnmvlisncu ha: ocrasboned 3 rrrrscarrraue nuusnce rn Jsefiuzvlvfiernzslfiiu-lw “Nana s.n.r ...n.ryn .. d... w my r... pflnlrullly mvrln dnuuvlnnl y. nrlurm vmul

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10